I am very disappointed to hear the party will be reduced to five.

[molotov.]

"Which games introduced a smaller party size compared to it's predecessors?"

 

Who cares? Even if every RPG in the world reduced party size in a sequel, that still wouldn't mean it's a great idea.

 

All that matters is, how will they rebalance the game for 5, and will that result in comparable or better tactical complexity - or no?

 

Nobody has made a single argument for why the number five is inherently unable to produce a good result. The burden of proof is on people saying it's a big deal, not the people saying 'let's wait and see'. People like you. People whose arguments mostly come down to "but I like 6", "other games did 6". 

Who cares? Maybe the 205 fans that voted for a 6 member party? It's quite clear that a downgrade was never introduced in the genre because it was a bad idea...

 

Why rebalance the game for 5? Why waste time and resources for this?

 

You clearly didn't read any of my comments, I said that I wanted an explanation to why the downgrade - imo - which you, and everyone else who are trying to defend this, failed miserable to explain.

 

5 members = less options, or that is not right? "So why not 7, 8, 9 or 10?" Because the game was already prepared to 6 and people liked 6, simple. "But we will have multi-class" so what? The game can't have 6 because of that? BG and IWD had multi-class... people defending this have bad and shallow arguments like the ones I mentioned and made a simply response.

Edited March 15, 2017 by molotov.

[algroth]

 

"Which games introduced a smaller party size compared to it's predecessors?"

 

Who cares? Even if every RPG in the world reduced party size in a sequel, that still wouldn't mean it's a great idea.

 

All that matters is, how will they rebalance the game for 5, and will that result in comparable or better tactical complexity - or no?

 

Nobody has made a single argument for why the number five is inherently unable to produce a good result. The burden of proof is on people saying it's a big deal, not the people saying 'let's wait and see'. People like you. People whose arguments mostly come down to "but I like 6", "other games did 6". 

Who cares? Maybe the 205 fans that voted for a 6 member party?

 

I voted for a 6-member party, and the reason I did is because more party members allows me to see more of their banter in a single play-through. It does not affect my opinion or expectations of the game whatsoever, though. Just saying, not all people who voted like you did necessarily did for the same reason, or invariably agree with you.

Edited March 15, 2017 by algroth

[molotov.]

 

 

"Which games introduced a smaller party size compared to it's predecessors?"

 

Who cares? Even if every RPG in the world reduced party size in a sequel, that still wouldn't mean it's a great idea.

 

All that matters is, how will they rebalance the game for 5, and will that result in comparable or better tactical complexity - or no?

 

Nobody has made a single argument for why the number five is inherently unable to produce a good result. The burden of proof is on people saying it's a big deal, not the people saying 'let's wait and see'. People like you. People whose arguments mostly come down to "but I like 6", "other games did 6". 

Who cares? Maybe the 205 fans that voted for a 6 member party?

 

I voted for a 6-member party, and the reason I did is because more party members allows me to see more of their banter in a single play-through. It does not affect my opinion or expectations of the game whatsoever, though. Just saying, not all people who voted like you did necessarily did for the same reason, or invariably agree with you.

 

So? I don't see your point. You are pointing out something that is quite obvious.

My comment was quite general "205 people cares about the game having 6 members instead of 5" that is what I meant, and you clearly care about it... I really don't see your point...

Edited March 15, 2017 by molotov.

[Ganrich]

There are 33k+ backers that didn't care enough to hop on the forums and vote either way. They obviously don't care about the party size changes.

[molotov.]

There are 33k+ backers that didn't care enough to hop on the forums and vote either way. They obviously don't care about the party size changes.

That is just a matter of statistics, governments, technological institutes, colleges and etc, don't ask 100% of the population to know the general opnion, they just need to interview a portion of the total number - this said number can vary depending on the research or the popullation. Again, quite a weak and shallow "argument."

Your argument is so bad that, following your logic, I could say this: "there are 33k backers that didn't care enough to hop on the forums. They obviously don't care about the game." If you want another example: "there are 33k backers that didn't care enough to hop on the forums. They obviously don't care about the combat system." See? Such a mediocre argument.

[Blades of Vanatar]

 

 

Deep breaths everyone. I think you will be ok with 5 multiclass level 20 characters.

Every argument here that "5 sucks we need six!" could just as well be applied to 6 characters if PoE 1 had originally allowed seven. Would you be now clamoring that "6 sucks we need 7" in that case? Or 8, or 9... or maybe we need 10, one for every class?

Five will be fine... and the new game will be designed around it so the encounters will be balanced for it.

Deep breaths.

 

Many prefer six as it is the tried and tested party balance in a ton of CRPGs going all the way back to the SSI gold box games, the Wizardry series and of course what PoE was supposed to the.... heir apparent to the BG series for starters. For Fantasy CRPGs look at most of the 'greatest of all time list' and see how many six man party games are in it. It's a lot. It is was people want.

Has there been a poll on this forum about this topic?

 

"A lot of good games had X, so clearly X is great, and changing it to Y sucks." Sorry, there's no logic there, just cliches. 

 

What if you started calling healing potions wunderbenders, and made skeletons high level enemies instead of low level fodder? Is that suddenly going to kill the game because it changed stuff? 

 

6 in a Wizardry game (or actually, 8 for Wizardry 8 ), or 4 in M&M 6, or 3-4 in a Final Fantasy game, or 2 in Divinity: Original Sin... all of that works or doesn't work to the extent that it's designed together with the rest of combat pacing, active abilities, encounter design, etc. If you don't bother thinking about any of that and just mouth "six six six" it's hardly much of an argument.

First off.. be nice will ya? It's just a backer preference for crying out loud. Don't take it so seriously. Seriously, don't take it so seriously.

 

I am not stating that automatically 6 is best. The old school Darksun games are some of my faves for example. As are the original Ultima games and ToEE. Hell I use the Co8 mod to bring my party up to 8 characters or I solo it. As I solo PoE and BG. Get the point?

 

I'm merely pointing out 6 is a tried and tested number so it shouldn't be surprising that many want it. It is a 'feel good' number for many fellow gamers, especially those of us who have been gaming for 35+ years. So if this forum allows me to voice opinion on want I want or prefer considering they want players to back it with cash I will state my preferences. But I can live with a five man team.

 

So remember... be nice.

[algroth]

 

 

 

"Which games introduced a smaller party size compared to it's predecessors?"

 

Who cares? Even if every RPG in the world reduced party size in a sequel, that still wouldn't mean it's a great idea.

 

All that matters is, how will they rebalance the game for 5, and will that result in comparable or better tactical complexity - or no?

 

Nobody has made a single argument for why the number five is inherently unable to produce a good result. The burden of proof is on people saying it's a big deal, not the people saying 'let's wait and see'. People like you. People whose arguments mostly come down to "but I like 6", "other games did 6". 

Who cares? Maybe the 205 fans that voted for a 6 member party?

 

I voted for a 6-member party, and the reason I did is because more party members allows me to see more of their banter in a single play-through. It does not affect my opinion or expectations of the game whatsoever, though. Just saying, not all people who voted like you did necessarily did for the same reason, or invariably agree with you.

 

So? I don't see your point. You are pointing out something that is quite obvious.

My comment was quite general "205 people cares about the game having 6 members instead of 5" that is what I meant, and you clearly care about it... I really don't see your point...

 

The point is that *I* am one of those 205 people who votes for having 6 members, and *I don't care* about whether we get 5 or 6. You can't assume that people care just because they voted on a random forum poll.

Edited July 7, 2017 by algroth

[Gregorovitch]

 

 

Deep breaths everyone. I think you will be ok with 5 multiclass level 20 characters.

 

Every argument here that "5 sucks we need six!" could just as well be applied to 6 characters if PoE 1 had originally allowed seven. Would you be now clamoring that "6 sucks we need 7" in that case? Or 8, or 9... or maybe we need 10, one for every class?

 

Five will be fine... and the new game will be designed around it so the encounters will be balanced for it.

 

Deep breaths.

 

Many prefer six as it is the tried and tested party balance in a ton of CRPGs going all the way back to the SSI gold box games, the Wizardry series and of course what PoE was supposed to the.... heir apparent to the BG series for starters. For Fantasy CRPGs look at most of the 'greatest of all time list' and see how many six man party games are in it. It's a lot. It is was people want.

 

Has there been a poll on this forum about this topic?

 

 

"A lot of good games had X, so clearly X is great, and changing it to Y sucks." Sorry, there's no logic there, just cliches. 

 

 

 

I strongly disagree. As has been pointed out 6 character parties have been extensively used in many of the best cRPG over the years and there is a reason for that, as there is a reason why people like and are comfortable with 6 character parties. They work very well for a particualr style of RPG like Pillars. There are also a number of classic RPGs that use smaller parties, such as KotOR, NWN2 MotB and Tyranny for example, and there is nothing wrong with that, but the important issue is that these games play very differently to PoE1, BG and IWD.

 

IMO there is nothing either illogical or cliche about pointing this out and saying "Make Tyranny with 4 character parties by all means, I'll even play it the way it was designed to be played, but Pillars is Pillars, it is different, and I don't want you to mess with it. It is tried and tested at 6 characters since Baldur's Gate, it works, it's great as it is. I don't want it play like Tyranny or MotB. I want it to play like Pillars 1 and BG did."

[Lorfean]

It's quite clear that a downgrade was never introduced in the genre because it was a bad idea...

 

This is pure speculation. Whether it would have been a bad idea depends on what else was changed (mechanically) between the IE releases, what they wanted to achieve in terms of encounter design, whether they cared enough to actually look into how a potential smaller party would affect the gameplay, etc. etc.

 

Yes, the 6 character party is a staple of the IE games -- that doesn't mean it's the only answer for all party-based (or even D&D based / inspired) CRPG's, ever.

 

Why rebalance the game for 5? Why waste time and resources for this?

 

This makes no sense. There is no "rebalancing the game for 5". Deadfire is a new game and for it they are designing what will essentially be the 2nd Edition of the PoE rules system, and the game will be build around that. Are you saying they should just leave the system as is? Because there has been a ton of player feedback about it over the past few years -- some of which was addressed in patches and TWM -- and they themselves have been very open about what they felt worked and didn't work. It was bound to be changed for the sequel.

 

This is, IMO, one of the bigger misconceptions -- or at least something that the proponents of the party of 6 are overlooking too easily -- PoE and its system was designed around a party of 6 (largely for nostalgic reasons), Deadfire and its system will be designed around a party of 5 because OE feels that it will provide better, more tactical combat. There's your argument. That is what they are trying to achieve with this change and the new and improved system. And neither of us will know whether they've succeeded until the game is out. You might not like the idea of it but you can't know whether it actually is a bad idea until you play the game. They obviously didn't make the decision lightly.

 

5 members = less options, or that is not right? "So why not 7, 8, 9 or 10?" Because the game was already prepared to 6 and people liked 6, simple. "But we will have multi-class" so what? The game can't have 6 because of that? BG and IWD had multi-class... people defending this have bad and shallow arguments like the ones I mentioned and made a simply response.

 

Some might say 5 = your choices re. party composition and character development have more weight and, as a result, are more interesting. Why not 7, 8, etc? Because it would dilute those choices, and make party / character building less interesting as you'd end up with a party that has an easy answer for nearly every situation. Also, micro-management... PoE was already heavy on this and it was a point of critique for a number of players. A larger party would make it worse.

 

And I don't think anyone is saying that the game can't have 6 because of multi-classing being introduced. What they mean is you'll have more flexibility when developing your characters, so you might not miss that 6th character as much as you think you will. But I don't think that is what it's about for many of you party of 6 proponents...

[Duskshift]

Well .. that escalated quickly...

the thing is [imo, ..duh]: PoE has had its share of problems (e.g. engagement; mentioned by JS himself - mind you), which they are obviously trying to fix (partially at least) with the 5 party change. Then there is also Tyranny with its lessons learned, which are (potenially) much easier to integrate or merge into Deadfire if the divide in party size isn't too great. The level design and enviromental style in PoE did also clearly favour smaller setpieces, which are also more ideal if there are 5 instead of 6. Going 5 therefore does seem logical to me.

 

Now you could also say that streamlining it does have further "benefits" balancing wise, but i am not that cynical*. (keep in mind tho, that JS advocates for a classless system**. Also that there is a deliberate design choice to give you the opportunity to play the game how you see fit. That a 5 party system has more emphasis on its members and does promote beeing jacks of all trades (or at least more than one, which most companions are) .. well .. ).

 

And well regarding the 'multiclassing will fix everything' and 'you can switch out .. '.. : The most people I know (which are casually playing PoE/BG/IWD) aren't that into multiclassing and prefer picking a "pure" party and sticking with it. Keep in mind that as far as encounter design is concerned i'd be very surprised if a min/maxed party (regarding multiclassing obviously) is considered as the default. Flexibility and diversity of abilities doesn't really matter if you have to give everyone that same tools. Which means in turn that so called flexibility is just the same button in another color.

 

To me it seems deliberate steamlining these changes are meant to improve managing / developing the system behind the game better and not to make it necessarily more engaging for the player. Now im not saying this will make Deadfire bad, but this is usually how it starts .. good intentions and all.

 

 

[Edit: Which is why i said before: i would really like beeing sold the 5 party idea and be pleasantly surprised. Looking through rose colored glasses does tend to have a certain effect after all, not that the stuff i wrote above is any better. Countering everything (yes, exaggerated) with fanboyism and the arguement of nostalgia is certainly not the best way to make people put on said glasses.]

 

*(ok mayb i am)

**(which would mean lots of Jacks basically)
 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Duskshift

[ArnoldRimmer]

...

People, if you really want to always take the same 4 dudes every playthrough, that's your freedom, but the game can't always cater to your whims and that doesn't mean it's broken...

 

But the whole argument from Obsidian is that having 5 instead of six will mean that they can write better NPCs - which seems like a crap argument especially as there will be less than in PoE 1. Also as you say, why should the game cater for people who want to play the same 4 NPCs all the time. Well, as there are only going to be about 8 of them, people will be playing the same ones all the time anyway, or they will be rolling their own which also defeats the idea that 5 makes better NPCs since most people won't be using them.

 

They should make it 6 and let people who want less take less. It also will **** up carrying on with the same self-rolled party as you will have to lose one... or maybe that is why they tried to kill off one at the kraken fight in WMII??? To get you a party down to 5 for the import into PoE II?

Edited March 15, 2017 by ArnoldRimmer

[amazeing4art]

I have to reply again as it seems some people are really fixated on "I need six characters to play this game!" Or "every party needs two frontline melee and a priest and wizard always"... or, etc.

 

1) You didn't need six characters to play POE1, even on POTD. The first time I played POTD yes I used all six slots. But the most fun I've had is later playthroughs all the way through with just two characters, killing every encounter but the dual Llengrath dragons. It's fun and not even too hard ( for example) to go with just a paladin and wizard, or a paladin and chanter, all the way through POTD. You sometimes actually want to use potions and scrolls and food too

 

2) I think some of the people who say they need six have nostalgia for Baldur's Gate and BG2 and want to re-experience the Awsomeness that was BG in new games. Heck I do too, BG2 is the gold standard. But thats no rational reason to be inflexible about everything.

 

3) Anyone saying stuff like... "I must have 6 because encounters demand two tanks and one melee dps and oh, a priest and wizard and that only leaves one slot"... you don't know what you are talking about at the moment because POE2 does not exist yet When it does it will be balanced around five and will succeed or fail based on how good a job they do creating encounters for five characters.

 

Until the beta comes out or the game is released, there is nothing to worry about in my opinion. trust the devs they created an amazing first game let them do it again.

[Tigranes]

 

 

 

Deep breaths everyone. I think you will be ok with 5 multiclass level 20 characters.

 

Every argument here that "5 sucks we need six!" could just as well be applied to 6 characters if PoE 1 had originally allowed seven. Would you be now clamoring that "6 sucks we need 7" in that case? Or 8, or 9... or maybe we need 10, one for every class?

 

Five will be fine... and the new game will be designed around it so the encounters will be balanced for it.

 

Deep breaths.

 

Many prefer six as it is the tried and tested party balance in a ton of CRPGs going all the way back to the SSI gold box games, the Wizardry series and of course what PoE was supposed to the.... heir apparent to the BG series for starters. For Fantasy CRPGs look at most of the 'greatest of all time list' and see how many six man party games are in it. It's a lot. It is was people want.

 

Has there been a poll on this forum about this topic?

 

 

"A lot of good games had X, so clearly X is great, and changing it to Y sucks." Sorry, there's no logic there, just cliches. 

 

 

 

I strongly disagree. As has been pointed out 6 character parties have been extensively used in many of the best cRPG over the years and there is a reason for that, as there is a reason why people like and are comfortable with 6 character parties. They work very well for a particualr style of RPG like Pillars. There are also a number of classic RPGs that use smaller parties, such as KotOR, NWN2 MotB and Tyranny for example, and there is nothing wrong with that, but the important issue is that these games play very differently to PoE1, BG and IWD.

 

IMO there is nothing either illogical or cliche about pointing this out and saying "Make Tyranny with 4 character parties by all means, I'll even play it the way it was designed to be played, but Pillars is Pillars, it is different, and I don't want you to mess with it. It is tried and tested at 6 characters since Baldur's Gate, it works, it's great as it is. I don't want it play like Tyranny or MotB. I want it to play like Pillars 1 and BG did."

 

 

Good! You're starting to give me an actual argument instead of "all the other games had 6". I appreciate that. 

 

You claimed 6 parties "work very well for a particular style of RPG like pillars." Can you give me any reasons for this? Because nobody has done it. Otherwise, your post currently stands at "it works really well [no reasons given], it's great."

Edited March 15, 2017 by Tigranes

[molotov.]

 

 

 

 

"Which games introduced a smaller party size compared to it's predecessors?"

 

Who cares? Even if every RPG in the world reduced party size in a sequel, that still wouldn't mean it's a great idea.

 

All that matters is, how will they rebalance the game for 5, and will that result in comparable or better tactical complexity - or no?

 

Nobody has made a single argument for why the number five is inherently unable to produce a good result. The burden of proof is on people saying it's a big deal, not the people saying 'let's wait and see'. People like you. People whose arguments mostly come down to "but I like 6", "other games did 6". 

Who cares? Maybe the 205 fans that voted for a 6 member party?

 

I voted for a 6-member party, and the reason I did is because more party members allows me to see more of their banter in a single play-through. It does not affect my opinion or expectations of the game whatsoever, though. Just saying, not all people who voted like you did necessarily did for the same reason, or invariably agree with you.

 

So? I don't see your point. You are pointing out something that is quite obvious.

My comment was quite general "205 people cares about the game having 6 members instead of 5" that is what I meant, and you clearly care about it... I really don't see your point...

 

The point is that *I* am one of those 205 people who votes for having 6 members, and *I don't care* about whether we get 5 or 6. You can't assumed that people care just because they voted on a random forum poll.

 

 "I voted for a 6-member party, and the reason I did is because more party members allows me to see more of their banter in a single play-through." You said that... so you don't care if we have 6 but you voted for 6 and gave a reason for that... but at the same time you don't care... so... why did you voted?

[molotov.]

 

It's quite clear that a downgrade was never introduced in the genre because it was a bad idea...

 

This is pure speculation. Whether it would have been a bad idea depends on what else was changed (mechanically) between the IE releases, what they wanted to achieve in terms of encounter design, whether they cared enough to actually look into how a potential smaller party would affect the gameplay, etc. etc.

 

Yes, the 6 character party is a staple of the IE games -- that doesn't mean it's the only answer for all party-based (or even D&D based / inspired) CRPG's, ever.

 

Why rebalance the game for 5? Why waste time and resources for this?

 

This makes no sense. There is no "rebalancing the game for 5". Deadfire is a new game and for it they are designing what will essentially be the 2nd Edition of the PoE rules system, and the game will be build around that. Are you saying they should just leave the system as is? Because there has been a ton of player feedback about it over the past few years -- some of which was addressed in patches and TWM -- and they themselves have been very open about what they felt worked and didn't work. It was bound to be changed for the sequel.

 

This is, IMO, one of the bigger misconceptions -- or at least something that the proponents of the party of 6 are overlooking too easily -- PoE and its system was designed around a party of 6 (largely for nostalgic reasons), Deadfire and its system will be designed around a party of 5 because OE feels that it will provide better, more tactical combat. There's your argument. That is what they are trying to achieve with this change and the new and improved system. And neither of us will know whether they've succeeded until the game is out. You might not like the idea of it but you can't know whether it actually is a bad idea until you play the game. They obviously didn't make the decision lightly.

 

5 members = less options, or that is not right? "So why not 7, 8, 9 or 10?" Because the game was already prepared to 6 and people liked 6, simple. "But we will have multi-class" so what? The game can't have 6 because of that? BG and IWD had multi-class... people defending this have bad and shallow arguments like the ones I mentioned and made a simply response.

 

Some might say 5 = your choices re. party composition and character development have more weight and, as a result, are more interesting. Why not 7, 8, etc? Because it would dilute those choices, and make party / character building less interesting as you'd end up with a party that has an easy answer for nearly every situation. Also, micro-management... PoE was already heavy on this and it was a point of critique for a number of players. A larger party would make it worse.

 

And I don't think anyone is saying that the game can't have 6 because of multi-classing being introduced. What they mean is you'll have more flexibility when developing your characters, so you might not miss that 6th character as much as you think you will. But I don't think that is what it's about for many of you party of 6 proponents...

 

After 5 pages you are the first person on this entire thread that made a good argument defeding the 5 members, thank you.

 

"This makes no sense. There is no "rebalancing the game for 5". Deadfire is a new game and for it they are designing what will essentially be the 2nd Edition of the PoE rules system, and the game will be build around that. Are you saying they should just leave the system as is? Because there has been a ton of player feedback about it over the past few years -- some of which was addressed in patches and TWM -- and they themselves have been very open about what they felt worked and didn't work. It was bound to be changed for the sequel."

So you think that remaking an entire combat system is better and less time consuming than adjust and fix the old one?

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

 

"Which games introduced a smaller party size compared to it's predecessors?"

 

Who cares? Even if every RPG in the world reduced party size in a sequel, that still wouldn't mean it's a great idea.

 

All that matters is, how will they rebalance the game for 5, and will that result in comparable or better tactical complexity - or no?

 

Nobody has made a single argument for why the number five is inherently unable to produce a good result. The burden of proof is on people saying it's a big deal, not the people saying 'let's wait and see'. People like you. People whose arguments mostly come down to "but I like 6", "other games did 6". 

Who cares? Maybe the 205 fans that voted for a 6 member party?

 

I voted for a 6-member party, and the reason I did is because more party members allows me to see more of their banter in a single play-through. It does not affect my opinion or expectations of the game whatsoever, though. Just saying, not all people who voted like you did necessarily did for the same reason, or invariably agree with you.

 

So? I don't see your point. You are pointing out something that is quite obvious.

My comment was quite general "205 people cares about the game having 6 members instead of 5" that is what I meant, and you clearly care about it... I really don't see your point...

 

The point is that *I* am one of those 205 people who votes for having 6 members, and *I don't care* about whether we get 5 or 6. You can't assumed that people care just because they voted on a random forum poll.

 

 "I voted for a 6-member party, and the reason I did is because more party members allows me to see more of their banter in a single play-through." You said that... so you don't care if we have 6 but you voted for 6 and gave a reason for that... but at the same time you don't care... so... why did you voted?

 

Because I could, and because I was filling time. I already stated my reasons above. As I said, don't assume everyone that votes in a forum poll cares, or agrees with you.

[Lorfean]

They are not remaking the entire combat system -- I didn't say that and neither have they -- a lot of the core concepts are still there. The system, or specific aspects of it, were points of criticism for a lot of players though, so it makes sense that they are reviewing it en redesigning parts they feel didn't work as well, and the new party size limit was obviously born from this reevaluation. They feel that, within the refinements of the system and how it affects combat and tactics, a party of 5 works best. And right now, we're just gonna have to take their word for it.

 

Also, thanks for acknowledging my argument. I hope it helps some of those in your camp keep a bit more of an open mind.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Lorfean

[Moriendor]

I really like five characters. Perfect size. Due to the holy trinity of DPS, healer, tank it is a bit too convenient and easy to find a party composition with six characters (two of each type would be a natural choice). A party size of five is forcing you to make a choice and a bit of a compromise somewhere. Choices = good. A little agony over which character to add to your current party is always good and enhances replayability in case you really want to try the game with a different composition next time.

[john_boy]

" Can you give me any reasons for this? Because nobody has done it"

 

 

Quest lock-down, it's a design issue - but if you have a companion that needs a certain number of rests/plot point to occur, then that slot is frozen until that happens.

 

With six, it's not so much of a problem (had this with GM in Pillars 1) - if you can meta-game with a bit of knowledge about the best time to swap, it's not a problem. Otherwise your party of five then becomes four, now that last slot is still functional, but what if I wanted to add a pure fighter/priest/whatever in that position ? 

[Varana]

So you think that remaking an entire combat system is better and less time consuming than adjust and fix the old one?

They started to fix the old one and in the process realised that part of the fix would be reducing party size to 5. That's the point.

They didn't decide on five randomly just to troll you and then built the game around that. They explicitly said that the reduced party size is the result of them trying to fix things that didn't work as well as intended in the first game.

 

P.S. I voted for 6 on that poll. It asked for preferred party size. I can certainly live with five, it's really not that big of a deal.

[FlintlockJazz]

I just hope that, should a quest have us wanting to bring a specific companion along for a quest that said companion doesn't count towards the party limit while doing that quest.  In BG2 I often used the sixth party slot as a hotseat for companions who wanted to come along for certain quests (e.g. Dynaheir when doing her castle, Valygar when doing the dimensional sphere etc), five characters plus hotseat felt like a proper adventuring party size to me, whereas four has always been too small whenever I have encountered it in previous games (Tyranny, Dragon Age: Origins, etc). 

 

What this means is that if I start having to use the fifth party slot as the hotseat then that actually means I only get four characters for my main party and I will not be happy.  Plus, a 'free' hotseat for specific adventures encourages players to try out said companion when often they would have just not bothered with them and give them more of a chance.

 

So, in short, I am saying okay to a party size of five as long as we get a hotseat slot in addition to our five for when we would want to take certain characters with us.  Then I can rename my party the Famous Five instead of the Sexual Six, and have my characters bring a picnic basket along instead of a basket of ****.  What, the rest of you don't do that?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

They could always maks the "hotseat" irrelevant, like no special quest for Companions outside the vision quest. So you don't have to take Xoti along to purge the temple of Gaun or whatever.

 

I personally don't really care about the party size, the problems I have with IE games and PoE have nothing to do with party size, nor does anything I like about them.

[molotov.]

I really like five characters. Perfect size. Due to the holy trinity of DPS, healer, tank it is a bit too convenient and easy to find a party composition with six characters (two of each type would be a natural choice). A party size of five is forcing you to make a choice and a bit of a compromise somewhere. Choices = good. A little agony over which character to add to your current party is always good and enhances replayability in case you really want to try the game with a different composition next time.

If we follow your logic...

Why not 2?! In that way we will have even more choices and even more agony! Just perfect!

Bad argument to defend this doomed idea.

[firkraag888]

I am happy with the reduction 10 a five member party. I agree with the devs that it felt to crowded with six  and the late game becomes to easy with 6 powerful builds.

 

It will also make replayability better as you wont be able to try out the classes quicker. 

[Gregorovitch]

So my party coming to the end of WM2 right now @ L13 on PotD looks like this in terms of damage dealt:

 

Eder (1H, shield, crossbow)...............................................62k

Tia (custom fighter, 2H, arquebus).....................................84k

Pallegina(1H, shield, pistol)................................................50k

Lavinia (MC, Druid, pistol)...............................................,,142k

Aloth (wand).....................................................................168k

Durance (rod)....................................................................26k

 

As can be seen Lavinia and Aloth are resonsible for 58% of total party damage output as well as debuffing and disabling enemies right left and centre. They can do this becasue in almost all circumstances Eder, Tia and Pallegina are capable of controlling the battlefield and preventing the enemy from interfering with them whist they reap havoc and devesation. They are built and equipped to cast fast and effectively (but not min-maxed as such) with high mobility to flank mobs, attack enemy backlines and evade engagement etc.

 

So if in Deadfire I am forced to fire one of them, who should it be? In practivce as far as I am concerned (i.e. in my play style) Pallegina's place is mandatory (story companion palladin for the auras and efficient resurection), Eder's place is mandatory (story companion tank) and Durance's slot is mandatory, or rather his replacement's is, as priest is IMO the most powerful class in the game and mandatory for all sorts of reasons. So we are down to a choice between Tia, Aloth and Lavinia (my MC) for the chop. In practice, again for me personally, Aloth is coming with me whatever becasue he is a key story companion I will not travel without, so really the choice is between my MC Lavinia and Tia.

 

This decision is going to boil downb to one simple question: can Eder and Pallegina control the battlefield (i.e. confront, halt and herd the enemy mob) by themselves in the absence of Tia? To do so two conditions must be met:

 

a) enemy mobs must be scaled down in numbers somewhat compared to PoE1

b) the space available for enemy mobs to evade Eder and Pallegina must be reduced and/or all encounter locations must contain plentiful environmental obstacles that can be routinely used to restrict enemy movements in lieu of Tia's absence.

 

Although I think consition a) will probably be met, I suspect condition b) in practice will not be as it would place too great a burden and too many restrictions on environment design. So a party of Eder, Pallegina, Lavinia, Aloth and Durance's replacement will not be viable as is and I will perforce have to change Lavinia's, Aloth's or Durnace's replacement's builds significantly to compensate, possibly all three if things turn out like a straight up toe-to-toe Tyranny slug-fest all the time becasue of this change unless I drop my MC Lavinia and roll a new one (which I obviously don't want to do).

 

Obviously one approach would be to model Lavinia on Jaheira in BG2 guise to cover Tia's absence. But much as I love Jaheira, and almost always play with her in both BG1 & 2, the fact is for me she's just a half-baked fighter who never seems to get to the really good stuff in the druid spell book who's main saving grace was her heals (which of course druids in pillars don't have in straight forward on demand form). In fact Jaheira is one of the main reasons why I learned never use muti-classing in these games.

 

I do not want to turn my beautiful, deadly moon godess Lavinia into a half-baked fighter with a restricted druid spell book. It's not her. She is not Jaheira. I like to build specialised characters that are as good at what they do as they can be, not hybrids. But if my reading of this situation is correct, I am in practice going to be forced to do just that, which is why I am so disappointed and unhappy about this change.

 

I've gone through all this so hopefully people can get an idea of where my concerns are coming from, how play and why I feel this change may affect how I play, force me to change it effectively under duress.. Now if we glance at the evidence from opinions expressed on this thread and others, and the poll there are two roughly equal camps:

 

* those that Deadfire will play just fine with 5 person party becasue it will be designed and balanced to do so, it'll be be fine on the night, don't worry, just trust.

* those that like me are afraid the change will alter the dynamics of combat and character building such that they will not be able to play the game the way they want to play the game.

 

I am going to conjecture that most people in the latter camp play somewhat like I do, and most in the former camp play differently, perhaps enjoying experimenting with muti-classing and hybrid charcters etc. If that is so then the situation is that for half the community it doesn't really matter one way or the other between 5 and 6 and for the other half it matters potentially a great deal.

 

Which seems to me to be a slam-dunk arguement that there should be a very, very strong positive reason to reduce the party size to five, one that objectively deepens and improves gameplay, and frankly I haven't heard one yet or anything remotely like one.