I kinda think that the number of joinable NPCs we have in BG2 is a perfect sweet spot. BG1 has too many if you ask me. It's really hard to choose from abundance of characters.
BG2 EE or BG2? I always felt one the weaker aspects of the original BG2 was the lack of companion choice. In fact, I could have gone for a few, little backstory, no sidequest additions. There's a pretty strong lack of options from a strategic, party building perspective, imo. Consider for example that your only thief options are mage/thieves, for the full playthrough at least.
BG2EE. Those additional EE NPC's make a difference.
I am kinda worried about the companions size. I remember them being kinda cagey when asked about how many companions there are outside of the origin characters and the answer was you can recruit mercenaries.
Kinda made it sound like Origin characters are the true companions and we'll have blank merceneries we can recruit ala something like Shadowrun Returns?
If there are a good number of origin characters that you can also recruit if you don't play that origin character, I don't see the problem. I'm more worried what that good number might be, according to Larian, because that will of course directly impact the replay value.
I kinda think that the number of joinable NPCs we have in BG2 is a perfect sweet spot. BG1 has too many if you ask me. It's really hard to choose from abundance of characters.
Referring to a previous post of mine: Do you think that "sweet spot" for NPCs is at all dependent on the number of companions you can have in your party? If BG2's number works well for a 6 man party, would less be okay for a game with a maximum party size of 4?
I kinda think that the number of joinable NPCs we have in BG2 is a perfect sweet spot. BG1 has too many if you ask me. It's really hard to choose from abundance of characters.
BG2 EE or BG2? I always felt one the weaker aspects of the original BG2 was the lack of companion choice. In fact, I could have gone for a few, little backstory, no sidequest additions. There's a pretty strong lack of options from a strategic, party building perspective, imo. Consider for example that your only thief options are mage/thieves, for the full playthrough at least.
I always felt like there were more NPC options than slots for any given game. The balance wasnt always perfect, and I'll agree they missed on thieves (To an extent. Pure thief is kind of a boring class, and the most important utility they offered was still present with a multiclass/dualclass option).
I'm of split mind on exactly how many companions we will have. Each companion they add will necessarily be fleshed out enough to be an origin character, so that puts a bit of a soft limit on how many companions they can afford to make.
D:OS 2 had six companions? That seems a little low, but I'm not sure we can expect more than something like 8 or so. D:OS could get away with having fewer companions in part because you could retrain every character into whatever you wanted them to be - so balance was never an issue. BG3 wont have that benefit.
I kinda think that the number of joinable NPCs we have in BG2 is a perfect sweet spot. BG1 has too many if you ask me. It's really hard to choose from abundance of characters.
Referring to a previous post of mine: Do you think that "sweet spot" for NPCs is at all dependent on the number of companions you can have in your party? If BG2's number works well for a 6 man party, would less be okay for a game with a maximum party size of 4?
I kinda think that the number of joinable NPCs we have in BG2 is a perfect sweet spot. BG1 has too many if you ask me. It's really hard to choose from abundance of characters.
BG2 EE or BG2? I always felt one the weaker aspects of the original BG2 was the lack of companion choice. In fact, I could have gone for a few, little backstory, no sidequest additions. There's a pretty strong lack of options from a strategic, party building perspective, imo. Consider for example that your only thief options are mage/thieves, for the full playthrough at least.
I always felt like there were more NPC options than slots for any given game. The balance wasnt always perfect, and I'll agree they missed on thieves (To an extent. Pure thief is kind of a boring class, and the most important utility they offered was still present with a multiclass/dualclass option).
I'm of split mind on exactly how many companions we will have. Each companion they add will necessarily be fleshed out enough to be an origin character, so that puts a bit of a soft limit on how many companions they can afford to make.
D:OS 2 had six companions? That seems a little low, but I'm not sure we can expect more than something like 8 or so. D:OS could get away with having fewer companions in part because you could retrain every character into whatever you wanted them to be - so balance was never an issue. BG3 wont have that benefit.
It's the frequency of stumbling upon joinable NPCs that were overwhelming in BG(EE). The very first location outside Candlekeep and you can already have 3 companions (Imoen, Xzar and Montaton). Then in FAI you can have additional 3 (Jaheira, Khalid and Dorn). Basically this means your party is already full and you visited just 2 locations. Then going to Nashkel you can have additional one (either Edwin or Minsc). This is the moment where you start having a headache regarding your party composition and that's just 3 locations visited. But then you may say that there is an even split between good and evil-aligned characters. So, you go to the 4th location, which is Beregost, to pick another two (Garrick and Neera). The headache grows... And going to 5th and 6th location (Nashkel Carnival and Nashkel mines) you can grab another two (Xan and Branwen). It's just... too many of them.
In BG2(EE) the distribution of joinable NPCs are more scarce. You don't have a feeling they are around each corner. And you have a very vast array of interesting races and classes to choose from.
.It's the frequency of stumbling upon joinable NPCs that were overwhelming in BG(EE). The very first location outside Candlekeep and you can already have 3 companions (Imoen, Xzar and Montaton). Then in FAI you can have additional 3 (Jaheira, Khalid and Dorn). Basically this means your party is already full and you visited just 2 locations. Then going to Nashkel you can have additional one (either Edwin or Minsc). This is the moment where you start having a headache regarding your party composition and that's just 3 locations visited. But then you may say that there is an even split between good and evil-aligned characters. So, you go to the 4th location, which is Beregost, to pick another two (Garrick and Neera). The headache grows... And going to 5th and 6th location (Nashkel Carnival and Nashkel mines) you can grab another two (Xan and Branwen). It's just... too many of them.
In BG2(EE) the distribution of joinable NPCs are more scarce. You don't have a feeling they are around each corner. And you have a very vast array of interesting races and classes to choose from.
I agree that the NPCs in BG2EE are more interesting and rewarding than the first game, but I've never felt that the first game throws NPCs at you at an unreasonable speed. It's true you can have a full party after leaving the Friendly Arms Inn (Imoen, Zents and Harpers), but you'll soon find them at each other's throats meaning your party won't stay full for long.
And while characters like Minsc, Coran, or the EE NPC's all are positioned in a way that you more or less have to run into them, many others (Shar-Teel, Safana, and indeed Branwen among others) are carefully tucked away to reward exploration. Are there a lot of underdeveloped characters? Sure. But I disagree that there are too many overall. Instead, I think the main problem is how a lot of them aren't recruitable until late in the game.
I would also like to point out how easy it is to have problems assembling your party in BG2EE as well. After Chateau Irenicus, you'll already have a four-person party. The Promenade offers another one (Aerie) before the game nudges you toward the Slums and the Copper Coronet, where another three (!) [EDIT: Actually four if you count Clara] can be recruited, at which point you'll be having the same type of headaches you described above.
Referring to a previous post of mine: Do you think that "sweet spot" for NPCs is at all dependent on the number of companions you can have in your party? If BG2's number works well for a 6 man party, would less be okay for a game with a maximum party size of 4?
This is an excellent point, and obviously lots of factors are key here. The ruleset is important as well. For example if it wasn't almost critical to have at least one thief, mage, cleric/druid and fighter in the BG's, then an even lower NPC count might have been fine.
Because of the high class flexibility in the original Pillars, I wasn't ever miffed that there was only one NPC of each class, and even some absent classes in the base game. So, maybe folks more familiar with 5e can chime in, and obviously it will depend on how Larian implements those rules. We can't quite know yet what's a good NPC loadout, imo.
I also disagree with others that there was a wide array of NPC's in BG2, at least the base game. I suppose fighter types they are. But in addition to thieves, there's also a lack of diverse divine casters, only one good cleric, one evil cleric for example.
Is there literally any benefit to limiting the party size to just 4 (for us as players, not for the people making the game)? I think that change is going to make a huge difference in my enjoyment of the game.
I think 6 is the perfect sweet spot, and half the fun of playing is playing with a different combination of party members, both from a combat perspective and a story perspective. Can you imagine how limiting it would feel to play BG with only 4? Mage, healer, warrior and thief. Done. Much less room for experimentation. I guess limiting it to 4 means they won't have to create as many because people will still need to replay to see all of the companions interact, but it's not quite the same.
Hopefully the companions are not all potential origin story PCs. From my perspective, it feels like a waste of time and resources that they could better spend elsewhere. Hopefully we'll get more information on this soon!
Four characters mean less micromanaging than six, which I'm sure many will find beneficial. And while I definitely would've preferred a party size of six, this doesn't necessarily have to mean party experimentation is more limited. It will depend on how much freedom we have at level up. Given how classes likely shouldn't be locked in the same way as back in the originals, I see little reason why characters like Astarion couldn't take levels in Bard or Wizard provided their stats allow for it. In this way, we could do a lot more with party composition (in terms of skill sets at least) than we could in the original games.
And I agree the big drawback with a smaller party size is fewer character interactions. One of the biggest things that stuck out to me playing BG as a kid (and still does, all these years later) was how some NPCs were tied to each other, and how they would start fights with others. To me, this will always be at the core of the BG DNA, and a bigger party size would allow for a lot more of this type of gameplay than a smaller would.
This is an excellent point, and obviously lots of factors are key here. The ruleset is important as well. For example if it wasn't almost critical to have at least one thief, mage, cleric/druid and fighter in the BG's, then an even lower NPC count might have been fine.
Because of the high class flexibility in the original Pillars, I wasn't ever miffed that there was only one NPC of each class, and even some absent classes in the base game. So, maybe folks more familiar with 5e can chime in, and obviously it will depend on how Larian implements those rules. We can't quite know yet what's a good NPC loadout, imo.
I also disagree with others that there was a wide array of NPC's in BG2, at least the base game. I suppose fighter types they are. But in addition to thieves, there's also a lack of diverse divine casters, only one good cleric, one evil cleric for example.
On the first point - The ruleset for 5e does allow for a lot more role combinations. The skill system is simplified from 3.5 edition, but basically allows you to be proficient in a skill or tool based on your background, class and race. So its very possible to roll a fighter and have skill proficiency in thieves tools and stealth, allowing you to entirely bypass the need for the traditional thief/rogue archetype in the party. Once you are proficient in a skill/tool, you are as good at that thing as you will ever be (Proficiency bonus is tied to character level) - so it isnt like you need to continually invest in the skill. The only differentiation is that the fighter might have a lower dex than the average rogue, and those skills will use your dex modifier as well.
Add to that the myriad of spells available to casters (Such as Pass Without a Trace) and you can can use flexibility to cover a lot of roles.
Healing is still important, but less important than in previous editions. There are other ways to heal (Expending your "hit dice" on a short rest) - in effect, this means that divine casters are more capable in combat than in the past because they arent expected to be healbots (Although they frequently lack the most powerful spells, like the iconic Fireball spell, for example).
To give you an idea - in the game I'm DMing, my original party was 4 players, all single class: A Fighter, A Ranger, a Druid and a Bard. With the exception of missing some AoE spell casting, they checked every box needed. The Bard left the group and was replaced by a Sorcerer, so even that is not an issue now.
To briefly respond to the two other things: I kind of hate the "One of everything" approach in PoE. Just felt phony to me. I also thought BG2 had good NPC distribution. I admit pureclass thief was a miss, but I liked having 2 clerics - one for each alignment. Different strokes/different folks, I suppose.
Is there literally any benefit to limiting the party size to just 4 (for us as players, not for the people making the game)? I think that change is going to make a huge difference in my enjoyment of the game.
I think 6 is the perfect sweet spot, and half the fun of playing is playing with a different combination of party members, both from a combat perspective and a story perspective. Can you imagine how limiting it would feel to play BG with only 4? Mage, healer, warrior and thief. Done. Much less room for experimentation. I guess limiting it to 4 means they won't have to create as many because people will still need to replay to see all of the companions interact, but it's not quite the same.
Hopefully the companions are not all potential origin story PCs. From my perspective, it feels like a waste of time and resources that they could better spend elsewhere. Hopefully we'll get more information on this soon!
A quick response to this: I get liking the 6 man party. It was the standard set (I guiess?) by BG1/2, IWD, PoE, PF:KM et al
5th edition D&D is specifically balanced for a 4 man party. This isnt to say you couldnt rebalance it on the fly if you need to, but the Monstrous Manual assigns each enemy a "CR" rating, which is the dev''s way of saying how hard the enemy is.
If a troll was a CR5 monster, the developers are saying that it should take 4 party members all being level 5 for that fight to be balanced (Hard but not too hard). The metric is utterly imperfect, and the the class composition as well as a myriad of other factors may make the fight easier or harder, but the game was essentially designed with a 4 man party as the "default" size.
Again. Not saying that's better than 6 (or worse). That's up to each individual.
Four characters mean less micromanaging than six, which I'm sure many will find beneficial. And while I definitely would've preferred a party size of six, this doesn't necessarily have to mean party experimentation is more limited. It will depend on how much freedom we have at level up. Given how classes likely shouldn't be locked in the same way as back in the originals, I see little reason why characters like Astarion couldn't take levels in Bard or Wizard provided their stats allow for it. In this way, we could do a lot more with party composition (in terms of skill sets at least) than we could in the original games.
And I agree the big drawback with a smaller party size is fewer character interactions. One of the biggest things that stuck out to me playing BG as a kid (and still does, all these years later) was how some NPCs were tied to each other, and how they would start fights with others. To me, this will always be at the core of the BG DNA, and a bigger party size would allow for a lot more of this type of gameplay than a smaller would.
I guess you're right. Not everyone enjoys micromanaging (in fact, I'm pretty bad at it myself, but I kind of enjoy the chaos of it all). However, in BG, you could just limit yourself to 4 and then benefit from the increased experience. I imagine it can be hard to create balanced encounters that cater to parties with anywhere from 1-6 people in them, though.
I love how I can still find interesting character moments in BG2, years later. I think in large part that is due to the large cast of characters and the fact you can't recruit everyone in a single game, a la Dragon Age or Mass Effect.
A quick response to this: I get liking the 6 man party. It was the standard set (I guiess?) by BG1/2, IWD, PoE, PF:KM et al
5th edition D&D is specifically balanced for a 4 man party. This isnt to say you couldnt rebalance it on the fly if you need to, but the Monstrous Manual assigns each enemy a "CR" rating, which is the dev''s way of saying how hard the enemy is.
If a troll was a CR5 monster, the developers are saying that it should take 4 party members all being level 5 for that fight to be balanced (Hard but not too hard). The metric is utterly imperfect, and the the class composition as well as a myriad of other factors may make the fight easier or harder, but the game was essentially designed with a 4 man party as the "default" size.
Again. Not saying that's better than 6 (or worse). That's up to each individual.
I had no idea! That's good to know, and definitely makes more sense. And I'm glad there's more flexibility in the classes. I still want more characters and a 6 person party, don't get me wrong, but at least we won't have a situation where you're forced to take along someone in particular because you didn't play a mage, etc.
Is there literally any benefit to limiting the party size to just 4 (for us as players, not for the people making the game)? I think that change is going to make a huge difference in my enjoyment of the game.
I think 6 is the perfect sweet spot, and half the fun of playing is playing with a different combination of party members, both from a combat perspective and a story perspective.
I can't speak to the tabletop experience, but one reason CRPG's have moved from 6 to 4 is in large part because of player demands of increased abilities, powers. Each party member is doing a lot more now, requires more micromanagement, and so combat becomes a bit more of a slog than it used to be.
Combat could flow well in Pool of Radiance and other Gold Box games, and even still plays well to this day imo, despite the tedious controls and being turn-based. Largely because players (and monsters for that matter) were often just attacking and moving most turns. Spells and ability usage was an infrequent, power move kind of thing reserved for key fights or emergency situations. Same was true to an extent in the BG games. You mostly left Khalid or Kagain or whoever up front to hack away and tank the blows and didn't have to pause much on their accounts. But players said they didn't want "attack bots" and so now every combat piece must be managed like a queen. The result, imo, is combat that flows better with a smaller party.
For me, I don't think the tradeoff has been worth it, only speaking of CRPG's again. I think there's nothing wrong with have one, or two or even three characters where what's important is equipping them well, maybe buffing them and then watching them go to town without much directed guidance from the player. But it's clearly not what the mainstream of the player base wants.
This is an excellent point, and obviously lots of factors are key here. The ruleset is important as well. For example if it wasn't almost critical to have at least one thief, mage, cleric/druid and fighter in the BG's, then an even lower NPC count might have been fine.
Because of the high class flexibility in the original Pillars, I wasn't ever miffed that there was only one NPC of each class, and even some absent classes in the base game. So, maybe folks more familiar with 5e can chime in, and obviously it will depend on how Larian implements those rules. We can't quite know yet what's a good NPC loadout, imo.
I also disagree with others that there was a wide array of NPC's in BG2, at least the base game. I suppose fighter types they are. But in addition to thieves, there's also a lack of diverse divine casters, only one good cleric, one evil cleric for example.
On the first point - The ruleset for 5e does allow for a lot more role combinations. The skill system is simplified from 3.5 edition, but basically allows you to be proficient in a skill or tool based on your background, class and race. So its very possible to roll a fighter and have skill proficiency in thieves tools and stealth, allowing you to entirely bypass the need for the traditional thief/rogue archetype in the party. Once you are proficient in a skill/tool, you are as good at that thing as you will ever be (Proficiency bonus is tied to character level) - so it isnt like you need to continually invest in the skill. The only differentiation is that the fighter might have a lower dex than the average rogue, and those skills will use your dex modifier as well.
Add to that the myriad of spells available to casters (Such as Pass Without a Trace) and you can can use flexibility to cover a lot of roles.
Healing is still important, but less important than in previous editions. There are other ways to heal (Expending your "hit dice" on a short rest) - in effect, this means that divine casters are more capable in combat than in the past because they arent expected to be healbots (Although they frequently lack the most powerful spells, like the iconic Fireball spell, for example).
To give you an idea - in the game I'm DMing, my original party was 4 players, all single class: A Fighter, A Ranger, a Druid and a Bard. With the exception of missing some AoE spell casting, they checked every box needed. The Bard left the group and was replaced by a Sorcerer, so even that is not an issue now.
To briefly respond to the two other things: I kind of hate the "One of everything" approach in PoE. Just felt phony to me. I also thought BG2 had good NPC distribution. I admit pureclass thief was a miss, but I liked having 2 clerics - one for each alignment. Different strokes/different folks, I suppose.
Is there literally any benefit to limiting the party size to just 4 (for us as players, not for the people making the game)? I think that change is going to make a huge difference in my enjoyment of the game.
I think 6 is the perfect sweet spot, and half the fun of playing is playing with a different combination of party members, both from a combat perspective and a story perspective. Can you imagine how limiting it would feel to play BG with only 4? Mage, healer, warrior and thief. Done. Much less room for experimentation. I guess limiting it to 4 means they won't have to create as many because people will still need to replay to see all of the companions interact, but it's not quite the same.
Hopefully the companions are not all potential origin story PCs. From my perspective, it feels like a waste of time and resources that they could better spend elsewhere. Hopefully we'll get more information on this soon!
A quick response to this: I get liking the 6 man party. It was the standard set (I guiess?) by BG1/2, IWD, PoE, PF:KM et al
5th edition D&D is specifically balanced for a 4 man party. This isnt to say you couldnt rebalance it on the fly if you need to, but the Monstrous Manual assigns each enemy a "CR" rating, which is the dev''s way of saying how hard the enemy is.
If a troll was a CR5 monster, the developers are saying that it should take 4 party members all being level 5 for that fight to be balanced (Hard but not too hard). The metric is utterly imperfect, and the the class composition as well as a myriad of other factors may make the fight easier or harder, but the game was essentially designed with a 4 man party as the "default" size.
Again. Not saying that's better than 6 (or worse). That's up to each individual.
I agree generally, but do believe the roles played by specific classes still matter in 5e. In the game I'm currently in, we don't have a dedicated healer. And since we're at level 11 the enemies we go up against can put some serious hurt on you. Not having serious healing power forces us to withdraw often to heal up with a long rest. We don't have a tank, and so the barbarian and my ranger often have to assume a tanking role to try and protect our many squishies. And we get creamed trying to tank. And although yes, you don't necessarily need a rogue for disarming traps or picking locks, you definitely need a rogue to successfully undertake stealthy scouting. So yes, there is a little bit more flexibility than 2e or 3.5e, but the party roles do still exist and the need for them also exists. Otherwise there is no point in having a class-based system anyway.
This is why my point about wanting a party of six is specific to whether the game's system is class-based or not. If the game system is not class-based, ex. D:OS, then a party-size of four can be fine because everyone can pretty much do all the same things. But if the game system is class-based, ex. D&D, then a party-size of six is what is ideal.
This is an excellent point, and obviously lots of factors are key here. The ruleset is important as well. For example if it wasn't almost critical to have at least one thief, mage, cleric/druid and fighter in the BG's, then an even lower NPC count might have been fine.
Because of the high class flexibility in the original Pillars, I wasn't ever miffed that there was only one NPC of each class, and even some absent classes in the base game. So, maybe folks more familiar with 5e can chime in, and obviously it will depend on how Larian implements those rules. We can't quite know yet what's a good NPC loadout, imo.
I also disagree with others that there was a wide array of NPC's in BG2, at least the base game. I suppose fighter types they are. But in addition to thieves, there's also a lack of diverse divine casters, only one good cleric, one evil cleric for example.
On the first point - The ruleset for 5e does allow for a lot more role combinations. The skill system is simplified from 3.5 edition, but basically allows you to be proficient in a skill or tool based on your background, class and race. So its very possible to roll a fighter and have skill proficiency in thieves tools and stealth, allowing you to entirely bypass the need for the traditional thief/rogue archetype in the party. Once you are proficient in a skill/tool, you are as good at that thing as you will ever be (Proficiency bonus is tied to character level) - so it isnt like you need to continually invest in the skill. The only differentiation is that the fighter might have a lower dex than the average rogue, and those skills will use your dex modifier as well.
Add to that the myriad of spells available to casters (Such as Pass Without a Trace) and you can can use flexibility to cover a lot of roles.
Healing is still important, but less important than in previous editions. There are other ways to heal (Expending your "hit dice" on a short rest) - in effect, this means that divine casters are more capable in combat than in the past because they arent expected to be healbots (Although they frequently lack the most powerful spells, like the iconic Fireball spell, for example).
To give you an idea - in the game I'm DMing, my original party was 4 players, all single class: A Fighter, A Ranger, a Druid and a Bard. With the exception of missing some AoE spell casting, they checked every box needed. The Bard left the group and was replaced by a Sorcerer, so even that is not an issue now.
To briefly respond to the two other things: I kind of hate the "One of everything" approach in PoE. Just felt phony to me. I also thought BG2 had good NPC distribution. I admit pureclass thief was a miss, but I liked having 2 clerics - one for each alignment. Different strokes/different folks, I suppose.
Is there literally any benefit to limiting the party size to just 4 (for us as players, not for the people making the game)? I think that change is going to make a huge difference in my enjoyment of the game.
I think 6 is the perfect sweet spot, and half the fun of playing is playing with a different combination of party members, both from a combat perspective and a story perspective. Can you imagine how limiting it would feel to play BG with only 4? Mage, healer, warrior and thief. Done. Much less room for experimentation. I guess limiting it to 4 means they won't have to create as many because people will still need to replay to see all of the companions interact, but it's not quite the same.
Hopefully the companions are not all potential origin story PCs. From my perspective, it feels like a waste of time and resources that they could better spend elsewhere. Hopefully we'll get more information on this soon!
A quick response to this: I get liking the 6 man party. It was the standard set (I guiess?) by BG1/2, IWD, PoE, PF:KM et al
5th edition D&D is specifically balanced for a 4 man party. This isnt to say you couldnt rebalance it on the fly if you need to, but the Monstrous Manual assigns each enemy a "CR" rating, which is the dev''s way of saying how hard the enemy is.
If a troll was a CR5 monster, the developers are saying that it should take 4 party members all being level 5 for that fight to be balanced (Hard but not too hard). The metric is utterly imperfect, and the the class composition as well as a myriad of other factors may make the fight easier or harder, but the game was essentially designed with a 4 man party as the "default" size.
Again. Not saying that's better than 6 (or worse). That's up to each individual.
I agree generally, but do believe the roles played by specific classes still matter in 5e. In the game I'm currently in, we don't have a dedicated healer. And since we're at level 11 the enemies we go up against can put some serious hurt on you. Not having serious healing power forces us to withdraw often to heal up with a long rest. We don't have a tank, and so the barbarian and my ranger often have to assume a tanking role to try and protect our many squishies. And we get creamed trying to tank. And although yes, you don't necessarily need a rogue for disarming traps or picking locks, you definitely need a rogue to successfully undertake stealthy scouting. So yes, there is a little bit more flexibility than 2e or 3.5e, but the party roles do still exist and the need for them also exists. Otherwise there is no point in having a class-based system anyway.
This is why my point about wanting a party of six is specific to whether the game's system is class-based or not. If the game system is not class-based, ex. D:OS, then a party-size of four can be fine because everyone can pretty much do all the same things. But if the game system is class-based, ex. D&D, then a party-size of six is what is ideal.
Yeah. I guess I didnt mean to suggest that there are no longer any roles. To be certain, you can be more efficient or less efficient. I suppose a party of 4 bards can handle just about any encounter, but a party with a front-line AC driven fighter, a healing focused Cleric, a CC/AoE inspired wizard and a secondary melee oriented damage dealer (Paladin perhaps, or maybe Barbarian/Rogue) will yield the ideal results in combat.
I dont think they're *necessary*, but it will be more optimal. I dont think there is any getting away from that in a class based game, though.
Anyways. Clearly I'm not trying to refute your point. Just that I think there are a lot of creative ways to fill the traditional roles in a 5e for a 4 man party, and I think that this will work to BG3's benefit (If there wasnt, I would count this as a worry about limiting the group to 4 members at a time).
I agree generally, but do believe the roles played by specific classes still matter in 5e. In the game I'm currently in, we don't have a dedicated healer. And since we're at level 11 the enemies we go up against can put some serious hurt on you. Not having serious healing power forces us to withdraw often to heal up with a long rest. We don't have a tank, and so the barbarian and my ranger often have to assume a tanking role to try and protect our many squishies. And we get creamed trying to tank. And although yes, you don't necessarily need a rogue for disarming traps or picking locks, you definitely need a rogue to successfully undertake stealthy scouting. So yes, there is a little bit more flexibility than 2e or 3.5e, but the party roles do still exist and the need for them also exists. Otherwise there is no point in having a class-based system anyway.
This is why my point about wanting a party of six is specific to whether the game's system is class-based or not. If the game system is not class-based, ex. D:OS, then a party-size of four can be fine because everyone can pretty much do all the same things. But if the game system is class-based, ex. D&D, then a party-size of six is what is ideal.
There´s still classes that fit better a determined role in 5e, but as @BallpointMan stated, there are many more classes or backgrounds (or even races) that could provide the specific abilities to fit that role.
The healer of the party could be a cleric, a druid, a bard, a ranger,... and in a slightly less effective way even a divine sorcerer or a Celestial warlock.
The role of dealing with traps and locks without using magic could be done by thieves and bards easily, but any artificer or any character, being barbarian, monk, ranger, fighter, etc with the "urchin" or "criminal" background could easily fit that role too.
You stated that you play with no healer, but you said that you have a ranger. Rangers have "cure wounds" "lesser restoration" and the incredible "healing spirit" spell (They´re the only ones besides druids that could use that spell) so I think your party already have a healer if you picked those spells.
I agree more party members mean more interactions, and I want more companions or NPCs you can talk too for the BG3 game; but if we´re discussing from a combat&exploration viewpoint usually is not mandatory a party of 6 in 5e, it´s usually balanced for a party of 4 characters.
With regards to the party size, I'm hoping that it's a variable that can be modded or edited, similar to how NWN2 technically had a limit of 4 party members, but you could actually modify it via the console to be much higher than that. It all depends on how exactly Larian codes the party structure. (There's hope that this will be the case though, as D&D parties generally have to account for additional group members such as summoned creatures, familiars/animal companions, temporary NPC allies, charmed/dominated enemies etc.)
Anyways. Clearly I'm not trying to refute your point. Just that I think there are a lot of creative ways to fill the traditional roles in a 5e for a 4 man party, and I think that this will work to BG3's benefit (If there wasnt, I would count this as a worry about limiting the group to 4 members at a time).
Yes this is what I'm saying as well. 5e provides more flexibility because there is more overlap in the abilities of the different classes. But at the same time, trying to lump together the various needs of your party into fewer characters is by definition going to be harder than with a greater number of characters. You also start losing some of the power of your characters if you are needing to add in a few levels of some class that you don't really want for that character but you have to add in those levels for some critically needed ability for the party.
Like you, I also have my own conceptualization of the "roles" in a D&D-style party. These are somewhat subjective, of course, and there is no magic "correct" conceptualization. But in mine, there are eight roles that need to be filled: melee damage-dealer; ranged damage-dealer; AoE damage-dealer; tank; scout; controller; buffer/debuffer; healer. Squeezing these roles into four characters is very tough, but doable. And you may have to be very optimal with your builds and avoid "fun" builds. OTOH, it just would be much easier with six characters, and also give you the leeway to be sub-optimal in how you set up your characters for the purposes of roleplaying and fun. So that's all I'm saying. Yes, four can work ok in Bg3. But six would open things up and make the game exponentially more fun because I wouldn't have to worry about all my builds being optimal or "perfect."
There´s still classes that fit better a determined role in 5e, but as @BallpointMan stated, there are many more classes or backgrounds (or even races) that could provide the specific abilities to fit that role.
The healer of the party could be a cleric, a druid, a bard, a ranger,... and in a slightly less effective way even a divine sorcerer or a Celestial warlock.
The role of dealing with traps and locks without using magic could be done by thieves and bards easily, but any artificer or any character, being barbarian, monk, ranger, fighter, etc with the "urchin" or "criminal" background could easily fit that role too.
You stated that you play with no healer, but you said that you have a ranger. Rangers have "cure wounds" "lesser restoration" and the incredible "healing spirit" spell (They´re the only ones besides druids that could use that spell) so I think your party already have a healer if you picked those spells.
I agree more party members mean more interactions, and I want more companions or NPCs you can talk too for the BG3 game; but if we´re discussing from a combat&exploration viewpoint usually is not mandatory a party of 6 in 5e, it´s usually balanced for a party of 4 characters.
Yes this is the big improvement in 5e IMO. For many party roles, healer being a very good example, you don't need to have one of the party members being dedicated to that role. That's what many players complained about with the older editions, that someone had to be the healer of the party, and as such, that player was stuck with a boring game because all they got to do was heal up the other characters. Now, you can break up the healer role across multiple party members so no one character is "stuck" with that role. The same is true with other roles like buffer/debuffer, controller, and scout. The one role that I feel you still need a dedicated person for, and this especially if your party size is going to be small, is tanking/blocking. If your party cannot keep the enemy from swarming your squishies, you're toast. It's why in every one of my P:Km playthroughs, Valerie is the one companion who is automatically and always in my party. If you build her right, she is a kickass tank. I can get her AC to easily be over 50 with buffs, and she just sits there in the middle of my line and holds the enemy in place allowing my flankers to methodically destroy the enemy.
With regards to the party size, I'm hoping that it's a variable that can be modded or edited, similar to how NWN2 technically had a limit of 4 party members, but you could actually modify it via the console to be much higher than that. It all depends on how exactly Larian codes the party structure. (There's hope that this will be the case though, as D&D parties generally have to account for additional group members such as summoned creatures, familiars/animal companions, temporary NPC allies, charmed/dominated enemies etc.)
God bless NWN2 and its console controlled party limit. More RPGs need that feature.
With regards to the party size, I'm hoping that it's a variable that can be modded or edited, similar to how NWN2 technically had a limit of 4 party members, but you could actually modify it via the console to be much higher than that. It all depends on how exactly Larian codes the party structure. (There's hope that this will be the case though, as D&D parties generally have to account for additional group members such as summoned creatures, familiars/animal companions, temporary NPC allies, charmed/dominated enemies etc.)
The made a 6-man-party mod for Dos and DoS2 games, and BG3 will use an improved version of the Larian game engine, so I assume It could be possible, in time.
That said, simply adding more characters to the party does not change the campaign if it´s made for a 4-player party.
With regards to the party size, I'm hoping that it's a variable that can be modded or edited, similar to how NWN2 technically had a limit of 4 party members, but you could actually modify it via the console to be much higher than that. It all depends on how exactly Larian codes the party structure. (There's hope that this will be the case though, as D&D parties generally have to account for additional group members such as summoned creatures, familiars/animal companions, temporary NPC allies, charmed/dominated enemies etc.)
The made a 6-man-party mod for Dos and DoS2 games, and BG3 will use an improved version of the Larian game engine, so I assume It could be possible, in time.
That said, simply adding more characters to the party does not change the campaign if it´s made for a 4-player party.
Yeah, a mod like that would feel like cheating to me, seems like it would neutralize the game's difficulty. You'd have to complement it with an increase in encounter difficulty. Though even then, the extra skills and such you're gaining outside of combat are also helping alot, I'd imagine.
I'm fine with the four person party. I have a personal sweet spot for six, like others have said. But these games are no longer balanced around that.
A very interesting interview, thanks for sharing. I'm looking forward to those stealth mechanics. I like playing rogues, and it's great they're giving more options to a rogue player.
It´s great news that they´re still working with the improvements for the ranger class.
One thing that amused me is that they´re gonna keep some of the vampire spawn weaknesses like Forbiddance.( The vampire can't enter a residence without an invitation from one of the occupants) or Harmed by Running Water. (The vampire takes 20 acid damage when it ends its turn in running water)
Astarion the rogue vampire could have some amusing scenes with this. "Hi, I´m your friendly rogue vampire, and I need to scout and burglarize your settlement with my sneaky skills, may I ask you for an invite so I could come in? - Angry mob throws him into a cascade-)
PD: It seems soon they´ll upload the 2nd part of the interview.
Astarion the rogue vampire could have some amusing scenes with this. "Hi, I´m your friendly rogue vampire, and I need to scout and burglarize your settlement with my sneaky skills, may I ask you for an invite so I could come in? - Angry mob throws him into a cascade-)
I love this.
Also to druids get a control water spell? Would be a must-have for any vampire that plans on doing any river crossing
An interview with one of the devs of Larian. Rock, paper, shotgun interview (7jul)
...
This interview is impressive I have to say. You can really tell that the designer being interviewed knows his stuff, comes off as very intelligent to me, very open minded too. The analysis of why they went from team initiative to individual initiative is great, and amazing how in depth they go into it.
Part two of the interview in Rock, paper, shotgun with Larian Studios' dev. Nick Pechenin. They talk about reactions, dead and dying, and more interesting, the possibility that the 10-level cap is not already decided, amongst other things.
Comments
BG2EE. Those additional EE NPC's make a difference.
If there are a good number of origin characters that you can also recruit if you don't play that origin character, I don't see the problem. I'm more worried what that good number might be, according to Larian, because that will of course directly impact the replay value.
Referring to a previous post of mine: Do you think that "sweet spot" for NPCs is at all dependent on the number of companions you can have in your party? If BG2's number works well for a 6 man party, would less be okay for a game with a maximum party size of 4?
I always felt like there were more NPC options than slots for any given game. The balance wasnt always perfect, and I'll agree they missed on thieves (To an extent. Pure thief is kind of a boring class, and the most important utility they offered was still present with a multiclass/dualclass option).
I'm of split mind on exactly how many companions we will have. Each companion they add will necessarily be fleshed out enough to be an origin character, so that puts a bit of a soft limit on how many companions they can afford to make.
D:OS 2 had six companions? That seems a little low, but I'm not sure we can expect more than something like 8 or so. D:OS could get away with having fewer companions in part because you could retrain every character into whatever you wanted them to be - so balance was never an issue. BG3 wont have that benefit.
It's the frequency of stumbling upon joinable NPCs that were overwhelming in BG(EE). The very first location outside Candlekeep and you can already have 3 companions (Imoen, Xzar and Montaton). Then in FAI you can have additional 3 (Jaheira, Khalid and Dorn). Basically this means your party is already full and you visited just 2 locations. Then going to Nashkel you can have additional one (either Edwin or Minsc). This is the moment where you start having a headache regarding your party composition and that's just 3 locations visited. But then you may say that there is an even split between good and evil-aligned characters. So, you go to the 4th location, which is Beregost, to pick another two (Garrick and Neera). The headache grows... And going to 5th and 6th location (Nashkel Carnival and Nashkel mines) you can grab another two (Xan and Branwen). It's just... too many of them.
In BG2(EE) the distribution of joinable NPCs are more scarce. You don't have a feeling they are around each corner. And you have a very vast array of interesting races and classes to choose from.
I agree that the NPCs in BG2EE are more interesting and rewarding than the first game, but I've never felt that the first game throws NPCs at you at an unreasonable speed. It's true you can have a full party after leaving the Friendly Arms Inn (Imoen, Zents and Harpers), but you'll soon find them at each other's throats meaning your party won't stay full for long.
And while characters like Minsc, Coran, or the EE NPC's all are positioned in a way that you more or less have to run into them, many others (Shar-Teel, Safana, and indeed Branwen among others) are carefully tucked away to reward exploration. Are there a lot of underdeveloped characters? Sure. But I disagree that there are too many overall. Instead, I think the main problem is how a lot of them aren't recruitable until late in the game.
I would also like to point out how easy it is to have problems assembling your party in BG2EE as well. After Chateau Irenicus, you'll already have a four-person party. The Promenade offers another one (Aerie) before the game nudges you toward the Slums and the Copper Coronet, where another three (!) [EDIT: Actually four if you count Clara] can be recruited, at which point you'll be having the same type of headaches you described above.
This is an excellent point, and obviously lots of factors are key here. The ruleset is important as well. For example if it wasn't almost critical to have at least one thief, mage, cleric/druid and fighter in the BG's, then an even lower NPC count might have been fine.
Because of the high class flexibility in the original Pillars, I wasn't ever miffed that there was only one NPC of each class, and even some absent classes in the base game. So, maybe folks more familiar with 5e can chime in, and obviously it will depend on how Larian implements those rules. We can't quite know yet what's a good NPC loadout, imo.
I also disagree with others that there was a wide array of NPC's in BG2, at least the base game. I suppose fighter types they are. But in addition to thieves, there's also a lack of diverse divine casters, only one good cleric, one evil cleric for example.
I think 6 is the perfect sweet spot, and half the fun of playing is playing with a different combination of party members, both from a combat perspective and a story perspective. Can you imagine how limiting it would feel to play BG with only 4? Mage, healer, warrior and thief. Done. Much less room for experimentation. I guess limiting it to 4 means they won't have to create as many because people will still need to replay to see all of the companions interact, but it's not quite the same.
Hopefully the companions are not all potential origin story PCs. From my perspective, it feels like a waste of time and resources that they could better spend elsewhere. Hopefully we'll get more information on this soon!
And I agree the big drawback with a smaller party size is fewer character interactions. One of the biggest things that stuck out to me playing BG as a kid (and still does, all these years later) was how some NPCs were tied to each other, and how they would start fights with others. To me, this will always be at the core of the BG DNA, and a bigger party size would allow for a lot more of this type of gameplay than a smaller would.
On the first point - The ruleset for 5e does allow for a lot more role combinations. The skill system is simplified from 3.5 edition, but basically allows you to be proficient in a skill or tool based on your background, class and race. So its very possible to roll a fighter and have skill proficiency in thieves tools and stealth, allowing you to entirely bypass the need for the traditional thief/rogue archetype in the party. Once you are proficient in a skill/tool, you are as good at that thing as you will ever be (Proficiency bonus is tied to character level) - so it isnt like you need to continually invest in the skill. The only differentiation is that the fighter might have a lower dex than the average rogue, and those skills will use your dex modifier as well.
Add to that the myriad of spells available to casters (Such as Pass Without a Trace) and you can can use flexibility to cover a lot of roles.
Healing is still important, but less important than in previous editions. There are other ways to heal (Expending your "hit dice" on a short rest) - in effect, this means that divine casters are more capable in combat than in the past because they arent expected to be healbots (Although they frequently lack the most powerful spells, like the iconic Fireball spell, for example).
To give you an idea - in the game I'm DMing, my original party was 4 players, all single class: A Fighter, A Ranger, a Druid and a Bard. With the exception of missing some AoE spell casting, they checked every box needed. The Bard left the group and was replaced by a Sorcerer, so even that is not an issue now.
To briefly respond to the two other things: I kind of hate the "One of everything" approach in PoE. Just felt phony to me. I also thought BG2 had good NPC distribution. I admit pureclass thief was a miss, but I liked having 2 clerics - one for each alignment. Different strokes/different folks, I suppose.
A quick response to this: I get liking the 6 man party. It was the standard set (I guiess?) by BG1/2, IWD, PoE, PF:KM et al
5th edition D&D is specifically balanced for a 4 man party. This isnt to say you couldnt rebalance it on the fly if you need to, but the Monstrous Manual assigns each enemy a "CR" rating, which is the dev''s way of saying how hard the enemy is.
If a troll was a CR5 monster, the developers are saying that it should take 4 party members all being level 5 for that fight to be balanced (Hard but not too hard). The metric is utterly imperfect, and the the class composition as well as a myriad of other factors may make the fight easier or harder, but the game was essentially designed with a 4 man party as the "default" size.
Again. Not saying that's better than 6 (or worse). That's up to each individual.
I guess you're right. Not everyone enjoys micromanaging (in fact, I'm pretty bad at it myself, but I kind of enjoy the chaos of it all). However, in BG, you could just limit yourself to 4 and then benefit from the increased experience. I imagine it can be hard to create balanced encounters that cater to parties with anywhere from 1-6 people in them, though.
I love how I can still find interesting character moments in BG2, years later. I think in large part that is due to the large cast of characters and the fact you can't recruit everyone in a single game, a la Dragon Age or Mass Effect.
I had no idea! That's good to know, and definitely makes more sense. And I'm glad there's more flexibility in the classes. I still want more characters and a 6 person party, don't get me wrong, but at least we won't have a situation where you're forced to take along someone in particular because you didn't play a mage, etc.
I can't speak to the tabletop experience, but one reason CRPG's have moved from 6 to 4 is in large part because of player demands of increased abilities, powers. Each party member is doing a lot more now, requires more micromanagement, and so combat becomes a bit more of a slog than it used to be.
Combat could flow well in Pool of Radiance and other Gold Box games, and even still plays well to this day imo, despite the tedious controls and being turn-based. Largely because players (and monsters for that matter) were often just attacking and moving most turns. Spells and ability usage was an infrequent, power move kind of thing reserved for key fights or emergency situations. Same was true to an extent in the BG games. You mostly left Khalid or Kagain or whoever up front to hack away and tank the blows and didn't have to pause much on their accounts. But players said they didn't want "attack bots" and so now every combat piece must be managed like a queen. The result, imo, is combat that flows better with a smaller party.
For me, I don't think the tradeoff has been worth it, only speaking of CRPG's again. I think there's nothing wrong with have one, or two or even three characters where what's important is equipping them well, maybe buffing them and then watching them go to town without much directed guidance from the player. But it's clearly not what the mainstream of the player base wants.
I agree generally, but do believe the roles played by specific classes still matter in 5e. In the game I'm currently in, we don't have a dedicated healer. And since we're at level 11 the enemies we go up against can put some serious hurt on you. Not having serious healing power forces us to withdraw often to heal up with a long rest. We don't have a tank, and so the barbarian and my ranger often have to assume a tanking role to try and protect our many squishies. And we get creamed trying to tank. And although yes, you don't necessarily need a rogue for disarming traps or picking locks, you definitely need a rogue to successfully undertake stealthy scouting. So yes, there is a little bit more flexibility than 2e or 3.5e, but the party roles do still exist and the need for them also exists. Otherwise there is no point in having a class-based system anyway.
This is why my point about wanting a party of six is specific to whether the game's system is class-based or not. If the game system is not class-based, ex. D:OS, then a party-size of four can be fine because everyone can pretty much do all the same things. But if the game system is class-based, ex. D&D, then a party-size of six is what is ideal.
Yeah. I guess I didnt mean to suggest that there are no longer any roles. To be certain, you can be more efficient or less efficient. I suppose a party of 4 bards can handle just about any encounter, but a party with a front-line AC driven fighter, a healing focused Cleric, a CC/AoE inspired wizard and a secondary melee oriented damage dealer (Paladin perhaps, or maybe Barbarian/Rogue) will yield the ideal results in combat.
I dont think they're *necessary*, but it will be more optimal. I dont think there is any getting away from that in a class based game, though.
Anyways. Clearly I'm not trying to refute your point. Just that I think there are a lot of creative ways to fill the traditional roles in a 5e for a 4 man party, and I think that this will work to BG3's benefit (If there wasnt, I would count this as a worry about limiting the group to 4 members at a time).
There´s still classes that fit better a determined role in 5e, but as @BallpointMan stated, there are many more classes or backgrounds (or even races) that could provide the specific abilities to fit that role.
The healer of the party could be a cleric, a druid, a bard, a ranger,... and in a slightly less effective way even a divine sorcerer or a Celestial warlock.
The role of dealing with traps and locks without using magic could be done by thieves and bards easily, but any artificer or any character, being barbarian, monk, ranger, fighter, etc with the "urchin" or "criminal" background could easily fit that role too.
You stated that you play with no healer, but you said that you have a ranger. Rangers have "cure wounds" "lesser restoration" and the incredible "healing spirit" spell (They´re the only ones besides druids that could use that spell) so I think your party already have a healer if you picked those spells.
I agree more party members mean more interactions, and I want more companions or NPCs you can talk too for the BG3 game; but if we´re discussing from a combat&exploration viewpoint usually is not mandatory a party of 6 in 5e, it´s usually balanced for a party of 4 characters.
Yes this is what I'm saying as well. 5e provides more flexibility because there is more overlap in the abilities of the different classes. But at the same time, trying to lump together the various needs of your party into fewer characters is by definition going to be harder than with a greater number of characters. You also start losing some of the power of your characters if you are needing to add in a few levels of some class that you don't really want for that character but you have to add in those levels for some critically needed ability for the party.
Like you, I also have my own conceptualization of the "roles" in a D&D-style party. These are somewhat subjective, of course, and there is no magic "correct" conceptualization. But in mine, there are eight roles that need to be filled: melee damage-dealer; ranged damage-dealer; AoE damage-dealer; tank; scout; controller; buffer/debuffer; healer. Squeezing these roles into four characters is very tough, but doable. And you may have to be very optimal with your builds and avoid "fun" builds. OTOH, it just would be much easier with six characters, and also give you the leeway to be sub-optimal in how you set up your characters for the purposes of roleplaying and fun. So that's all I'm saying. Yes, four can work ok in Bg3. But six would open things up and make the game exponentially more fun because I wouldn't have to worry about all my builds being optimal or "perfect."
Yes this is the big improvement in 5e IMO. For many party roles, healer being a very good example, you don't need to have one of the party members being dedicated to that role. That's what many players complained about with the older editions, that someone had to be the healer of the party, and as such, that player was stuck with a boring game because all they got to do was heal up the other characters. Now, you can break up the healer role across multiple party members so no one character is "stuck" with that role. The same is true with other roles like buffer/debuffer, controller, and scout. The one role that I feel you still need a dedicated person for, and this especially if your party size is going to be small, is tanking/blocking. If your party cannot keep the enemy from swarming your squishies, you're toast. It's why in every one of my P:Km playthroughs, Valerie is the one companion who is automatically and always in my party. If you build her right, she is a kickass tank. I can get her AC to easily be over 50 with buffs, and she just sits there in the middle of my line and holds the enemy in place allowing my flankers to methodically destroy the enemy.
God bless NWN2 and its console controlled party limit. More RPGs need that feature.
The made a 6-man-party mod for Dos and DoS2 games, and BG3 will use an improved version of the Larian game engine, so I assume It could be possible, in time.
That said, simply adding more characters to the party does not change the campaign if it´s made for a 4-player party.
Yeah, a mod like that would feel like cheating to me, seems like it would neutralize the game's difficulty. You'd have to complement it with an increase in encounter difficulty. Though even then, the extra skills and such you're gaining outside of combat are also helping alot, I'd imagine.
I'm fine with the four person party. I have a personal sweet spot for six, like others have said. But these games are no longer balanced around that.
It´s great news that they´re still working with the improvements for the ranger class.
One thing that amused me is that they´re gonna keep some of the vampire spawn weaknesses like Forbiddance.( The vampire can't enter a residence without an invitation from one of the occupants) or Harmed by Running Water. (The vampire takes 20 acid damage when it ends its turn in running water)
Astarion the rogue vampire could have some amusing scenes with this. "Hi, I´m your friendly rogue vampire, and I need to scout and burglarize your settlement with my sneaky skills, may I ask you for an invite so I could come in? - Angry mob throws him into a cascade-)
PD: It seems soon they´ll upload the 2nd part of the interview.
Vampirism at least on 3.5e is a huge BUFF to sorcerers...
I love this.
Also to druids get a control water spell? Would be a must-have for any vampire that plans on doing any river crossing
This interview is impressive I have to say. You can really tell that the designer being interviewed knows his stuff, comes off as very intelligent to me, very open minded too. The analysis of why they went from team initiative to individual initiative is great, and amazing how in depth they go into it.