Much like Divinity OS2 I suspect this will be one of the first things modded if it's not in the official game. You already have two additional characters added to your party during the first rescue mission so it's entirely possible if a bit unbalancing.
I prefer 4 myself. The way this campaign is set up, 6 would be overkill.
-Glimpse
I think the EA version's combat is balanced based on 4-member party. But why not 6? I would really enjoy more options to choice during combat.
But, for a 6-member party, entire battles -including a random battle on the world map- should be rebalanced IMO. The number of enemies per combat and the average level of enemies and combination of enemy types etc...
With a 6-member party, the current EA content will be too easy. All combats will be over within the first or not longer than the second turn. As a person who doesn't like alphastrike meta, difficulty and level design should be managed based on the level and number of the player party.
I'm accustomed to the 6 member party system and really like it but understand the balance issues adding this might introduce. They have also obviously put time and resources in to fully voice acting all 4 characters. Adding another 1 or 2 might not be so simple for a small dev team. Although if they were going to go for it now may be the better time. I don't know how much more content they have completed but adding in the changes required to boost the part size now would be easier than doing it after they have the entire campaign completed.
If they can do it I think 5 would be a nice number. It's that one flex slot that could make things a lot more tactically viable and interesting. I find right now that with 4 everyone but my mage tends to end up in melee combat, sometimes my mage too. Very difficult to build a dedicated archer which is what I was trying to go for in my playthrough.
I think the EA version's combat is balanced based on 4-member party. But why not 6? I would really enjoy more options to choice during combat.
But, for a 6-member party, entire battles -including a random battle on the world map- should be rebalanced IMO. The number of enemies per combat and the average level of enemies and combination of enemy types etc...
With a 6-member party, the current EA content will be too easy. All combats will be over within the first or not longer than the second turn. As a person who doesn't like alphastrike meta, difficulty and level design should be managed based on the level and number of the player party.
One envisionable solution : distribute the xp according to the size of party. (Small size = faster lvl up)
I love the idea of larger parties. Four never seems enough for me, six is spot on. As some have mentioned, 4 allows only a pretty stereotypical layout if you don't want holes, and even then tends to leave a few holes, even with the awesomely versatile character development system. Six allows for those couple of weird/different/interesting characters that spice things up.
There is no need to worry about balance, at this point in particular, stick to working on 4 person teams, consider 5/6 to be easier difficulty modes...shouldn't harm anyone at all should it? Having said that, it probably wouldn't hurt to put some thought into designing encounters to be able to scale from 4-6 members, generally that should not be too hard to do, and for long term content building it is probably a very wise move.
Pete :D
I think that there should be an option to "Difficulty" that only changes the amount of characters.
Like this.
Very Hard: 3 PCs.
Hard/Normal: 4 PCs.
Easy/Normal: 5 PCs.
Very Easy: 6 PCs
Everyone seems to forget the D&D 5E modules are made for up to 4 player and you DM if you have a group that gets together has to modify for the bigger party size.
Technically, the game already allows for parties of 6: 4 characters plus 2 "followers". Therefor, the game is already modified for "bigger groups". The only difference is the followers cannot be geared beyond what they come with, and cannot be leveled through xp, learning spells etc. Those are paper doll/mechanical differences. The player already controls their actions, similar to the regular four.
Everyone seems to forget the D&D 5E modules are made for up to 4 player and you DM if you have a group that gets together has to modify for the bigger party size.
No, modules are made for parties of 4-6. Right now I am playing a vTT game using Rime of the Frostmaiden, and we have a party of six which is working just fine. None of us has had to min-max our characters. We even have some duplication of abilities and a lot of eccentricity. But because there are six of us, our very far from optimized party is able to handle the game just fine. That's how a party-based game should be, where we can have a party of non-optimized and possibly even weird characters and there's still enough there in the party to handle anything the game throws at you.
Some of the best Dandy computerizations are four characters or less, like Knights of the Chalice. To be fair KotC only has three classes.
I also think Herr Balance is right, five is best for dandyesque RTwP. Maybe TTB too.
But I love Wiz8, which is 6+2. I would say eight, but followers have a will of their own and won't go to certain areas in the game.
Alternatively : make the NPC followers more interesting :
- access to stats / spellbound
- access to equipment screen (doesn't necessarily mean you can rob them blind)
- add additional mercenaries companions, etc.
I'm a 5man party guy myself. 6 gets a little too micro manage-y at higher levels. 4 really pairs down your options for dealing with the basic phases of the game (tanking/spell damage, etc). With 5 you have many more options to experiment with 2-3 off tanks or 2-3 off healers instead of 1 full time character. 5 characters let's you come back from a bad start where a couple guys get knocked out early but is still challenged without needing full blown hordes thrown at it like 6+.
I like five also but I get the feeling it’s not popular because it’s an odd number.
Four covers all the basics and you can have one wild card.
I would prefer to have 5 or 6 party members. Like most proponents of a bigger party size, I like having a more versatile party with various build options. My current TTRPG play group is 5 players (Paladin, Fighter, Druid, Cleric and my Dex based Ranger), sometimes with an alternate 6th player.
However, I don't feel like I am missing out as much since there are only 6 of the 12 core classes in Solasta. No Bard to add that 5th support role. No Sorcerer or Warlock to fill that alt Arcane caster role. No Druid to fill the various roles a Druid can fill based on build. No Monk or Barbarian to fill that alternate melee role (probably the least important, given we have 4 martials already).
The game, as it is now, seems very well balanced at 4, and given all the work still needed to refine the base game, I don't think that increasing the size to 6 and rebalancing it is the right focus for the Dev Team right now.
So I guess my opinion is "Yes, I would enjoy a 6 PC party, but it's probably Mod territory"