why the hate on BG3

[FreeKaner]

A 4-units game isn't necessarily less tactical than a 5 or 6 one. That's a bad argument to make. Main difference is that only 3 companions in a party feels too few in a party-based RPG, while 5 of them adds a lot more color.

 

[Grunker]

“tactical party based combat is superior”

“maybe so but whatabout this game giving your party way too many skills”

not sure i follow how your post is a criticism of party based combat or even a defense of single character. seems like you’re grasping tbh

 

[rusty_shackleford]

“tactical party based combat is superior”

“maybe so but whatabout this game giving put way to many skills to your party”

not sure i follow how your post i a criticism og party based combat or even a defense of single character. seems like you’re grasping tbh

it doesn't just apply to skills, it applies to combat too.
in party-based RPGs you don't build your character, you build your party. They're tactical games with RPG elements.

 

[Grunker]

i know building your party is so great <3

as to “what is an rpg” i don’t personally care what it is

i care about party based combat, a lot of customization and if possible great c&c and faction mechanics if that’s not an rpg ok but it’s a game i like

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

who gives a fuck about the default party size of 5e

4 man party in a crpg is on the small side and unfortunate

Actually, BG1&2's 6 man party was too big. Most people just window selected their party and clicked the attack button. No strategy necessary because it was OP for both games.

A six man party in a game that can easily be solo'd is ridiculous.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

who gives a fuck about the default party size of 5e

4 man party in a crpg is on the small side and unfortunate

Actually, BG1&2's 6 man party was too big. Most people just window selected their party and clicked the attack button. No strategy necessary because it was OP for both games.

A six man party in a game that can easily be solo'd is ridiculous.

Most of the companions also had the personality depth of a shallow puddle, BG1 especially. In BG2, only a handful of the companions were truly fleshed out.

 

[Grunker]

who gives a fuck about the default party size of 5e

4 man party in a crpg is on the small side and unfortunate

Actually, BG1&2's 6 man party was too big. Most people just window selected their party and clicked the attack button. No strategy necessary because it was OP for both games.

A six man party in a game that can easily be solo'd is ridiculous.

unfortunate is probably too strong

it’s less than i ideally would want but enough that i’ll play it

 

[rusty_shackleford]

who gives a fuck about the default party size of 5e

4 man party in a crpg is on the small side and unfortunate

Actually, BG1&2's 6 man party was too big. Most people just window selected their party and clicked the attack button. No strategy necessary because it was OP for both games.

A six man party in a game that can easily be solo'd is ridiculous.

unfortunate is probably too strong

it’s less than i would want but enough that i’ll play it

explain why a bigger party makes it better

 

[Grunker]

who gives a fuck about the default party size of 5e

4 man party in a crpg is on the small side and unfortunate

Actually, BG1&2's 6 man party was too big. Most people just window selected their party and clicked the attack button. No strategy necessary because it was OP for both games.

A six man party in a game that can easily be solo'd is ridiculous.

unfortunate is probably too strong

it’s less than i would want but enough that i’ll play it

explain why a bigger party makes it better

character customization is fun, more character customization is more fun

i also enjoy having to consider more factors and character synergies in combat

 

[rusty_shackleford]

who gives a fuck about the default party size of 5e

4 man party in a crpg is on the small side and unfortunate

Actually, BG1&2's 6 man party was too big. Most people just window selected their party and clicked the attack button. No strategy necessary because it was OP for both games.

A six man party in a game that can easily be solo'd is ridiculous.

unfortunate is probably too strong

it’s less than i would want but enough that i’ll play it

explain why a bigger party makes it better

character customization is fun, more character customization is more fun

i also enjoy having to consider more factors and character synergies in combat

BG1&2 have near zero character customization after your character is made though

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

i also enjoy having to consider more factors and character synergies in combat

yeah, but you only needed a four or so characters to make all the fights in BG2 easy.

the more characters you have, the less you need to worry about synergies and other details.

I also like more options, and I wouldn't mind the option of having 6 characters, but I don't see it as limiting my enjoyment to have 4. and it will probably force more players to think strategically.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

BG1&2 have near zero character customization after your character is made though

well, you can do dual classing and other things, especially with the HLA. but ftmp, this is true.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

BG1&2 have near zero character customization after your character is made though

well, you can do dual classing and other things, especially with the HLA. but ftmp, this is true.

only humans can dual-class, every other race has to pick when it's being created.
HLAs are basically the only "choice" you get if you play as a non-human

 

[perfectslumbers]

explain why a bigger party makes it better

I like 6 man parties because it gives the party more variety

Small parties are more replayable though imo, since you'll have less overlap

 

[Grunker]

who gives a fuck about the default party size of 5e

4 man party in a crpg is on the small side and unfortunate

Actually, BG1&2's 6 man party was too big. Most people just window selected their party and clicked the attack button. No strategy necessary because it was OP for both games.

A six man party in a game that can easily be solo'd is ridiculous.

unfortunate is probably too strong

it’s less than i would want but enough that i’ll play it

explain why a bigger party makes it better

character customization is fun, more character customization is more fun

i also enjoy having to consider more factors and character synergies in combat

BG1&2 have near zero character customization after your character is made though

yes and it's one of my (maybe the tbh) strongest criticisms of the games, a giant blemish on the games, voiced both here on the forums and in my reviews

i always thought it fun that the game most praised for its character system by the ad&d-cult is Wizardry 8, but that game has so much character customization you can barely recognize ad&d beneath it all. and even that game has the issue that leveling up is often an automated process

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

6 man party: every fight is the same because you always have your swiss army knife of six characters that you can really just window select and one-click mob an enemy anyway.
4 man party: actually have to choose whom to bring and whom not to.

It's one of the reasons I like that there were interparty conflicts in BG NPCs. Want to bring a party of 6 munchkins? Oops, looks like your wizard wants to duel to the death with your dwarf. I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

And I think ironman games with permadeath were another justification for 6 members. Now that permadeath is no longer a thing in RPGs, thanks to normies, 6 member is just OP even in ironman games.

I like 6 man parties because it gives the party more variety

You can just leave the extras at camp in BG3 and use them later. Still has variety, but you can't power game as easily.

yes and it's one of my (maybe the tbh) strongest criticisms of the game, voiced both here on the forums and in my reviews

Now that we've seen the alternative, which is the spreadsheet build faggotry in Pathfinder and 3e+, I think it's safe to say we weren't missing much when it came to customization.

Regardless, you kind of dodged rusty's point: if customization is what you enjoy, why are you upset about downsizing to 4 members if you couldn't customize even with six?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

in most games where I can have larger parties, especially ones with full character creation/customization, I never feel like I'm in a situation where the enemy has me at a disadvantage. It's always too easy to create a well-rounded party without weaknesses. This is typically something that never happens at tabletop because nobody wants to be told what to play or how to play their character.
At least in games like BG1/2 I'm forced to take what they give me I suppose, this is closer to tabletop.

 

[Grunker]

why are you upset about downsizing to 4 members if you couldn't customize even with six?

i generally don't get upset about games

but to answer your question: because i like customization

your point that i still liked bg1&2 doesn't prove what you think it proves, since like i said, one of the things i always miss when playing bg1&2 is customization

in most games where I can have larger parties, especially ones with full character creation/customization, I never feel like I'm in a situation where the enemy has me at a disadvantage

lol because fallout is so hard right

even vanilla bg2 is way harder - not to mention scs. and yes, that's a mod, but difficulty like that should be a base part of any rpg, and if twisted rune with a reasonable party didn't put you at a disadvantage, boy, i'm calling bullshitz

 

[rusty_shackleford]

lol because fallout is so hard right

no, but underrail definitely can be if you aren't a metagamer and have someone else tell you exactly how to play the game
even then, you'll probably still die a lot on dominating

 

[Grunker]

lol because fallout is so hard right

no, but underrail definitely can be

my point wasn't "single-character rpgs are not difficult"

my point was "your observation that lack of difficulty in party-based rpgs come from party-size is false"

 

[perfectslumbers]

You can just leave the extras at camp in BG3 and use them later. Still has variety, but you can't power game as easily.

I meant interparty variety. With 6 members there is a wider variety of possible combinations in a single fight

It's always too easy to create a well-rounded party without weaknesses.

Honestly a very good point against 6 member parties.

Part of the reason I enjoy 6 member parties in D&D games is that you basically always need 1 full divine caster and 1 full arcane caster. This is a lot less prominent in 5e though with the removal of buffs that hard counter other spells, you can basically use any party in 5e which I think is nice

 

[rusty_shackleford]

lol because fallout is so hard right

no, but underrail definitely can be

my point wasn't "single-character rpgs are not difficulty"

my point was "your observation that easyness in party-based rpgs come from party-size is false"

I can't think of a single game with full-party control that is anywhere near as difficult as underrail on dominating.
BONUS POINTS: underrail has more customization with one character than most games have with a full party. Plus it actually requires tradeoffs.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

but to answer your question: because i like customization

your point that i still liked bg1&2 doesn't prove what you think it proves, since like i said, one of the things i always miss when playing bg1&2 is customization

So, the reason you're displeased with downsizing 6 party members to 4 is that there will be less customization, but you admit that there was no customization when there were 6 party members.

Ok.

 

[Grunker]

lol because fallout is so hard right

no, but underrail definitely can be

my point wasn't "single-character rpgs are not difficulty"

my point was "your observation that easyness in party-based rpgs come from party-size is false"

I can't think of a single game with full-party control that is anywhere near as difficult as underrail on dominating.

then that must be it, your point is proven

except woops: your assertion was that no game ever had a 6-man party at a disadvantage. and that's just patently bullshit

we can all agree that underrail's difficulty is generally great. but except a false observation, you haven't made any case that it's due to it being single-character

 

[rusty_shackleford]

except woops: your assertion was that no game ever had a 6-man party at a disadvantage. and that's just patently bullshit

nope.
maybe you just aren't good at tactical games?