51 réponses à ce sujet

[MBirkhofer]

5 man party would be great with dog, archers etc. But so ridiculously unbalanced with more then 2 mages. Heck even 2 mages is silly OP.

[hexaligned]

Only if the difficulty ramped up to compensate, it's too easy with four generaly speaking. 5 would just tear through the game without pause.

[AbueloShika]

People who are saying it would be too easy are being slightly stupid.



If the game was designed to let you have 5 characters, it would not be balanced around you having four as it currently is would it.

[DM Veil]

MakersBreath wrote...

What I'd prefer, honestly, is a fifth party slot exclusively for the Dog.

The Dog just doesn't measure up to any of the other characters, and feels like a waste of a slot with him in the party. But I'd like to have him in the party.

Perhaps I'll try adding the Dog through the console.

I'm curious how you usually use the Dog because I think he's awesome for dealing with enemy mages.

[JessicaGlenn]

I have six members in my party. That's right, 4 people + ranger summon and animated skeleton.

[Skellimancer]

Just add more to your group with console commands and pretend you are playing Shining Force.

[Wolff Laarcen]

I'm playing with 5 on hard atm, going through Brecilian forest, level 10-11. mage x2, warrior x2 and rogue. I can definitely tell that the mobs hit harder and have more health - but i know all the pulls now so it feels reasonably difficult.

Modifié par Wolff Laarcen, 16 novembre 2009 - 07:17 .

[Ibian]

Having everyone along would be better. It bugs me in every single party-type game. I want more than 3 people from my group along, especially when the banter is as good as it is in this game. It's the reason i never got very far in the BG games (above and beyond the horrible combat mechanics).

[WildstarGoethe]

Ibian wrote...

Having everyone along would be better. It bugs me in every single party-type game. I want more than 3 people from my group along, especially when the banter is as good as it is in this game. It's the reason i never got very far in the BG games (above and beyond the horrible combat mechanics).

But...you could have more than three party members in the BG games.

[James E]

Would like 6 for the extra tactical possibilities. One quick balancing fix would be to share out the xp accordingly so characters levelled slower.

[Oscal]

I also prefer 5:

-tank1 (assault)

-tank2 (defend)

-rogue/archer/ranger

-cleric/healer/bard

-mage



I used to play D&D game with cleric, which is primarily a healer, but also not bad in melee combat.

In DA, the problem is that the healer is too weak, definitely not suitable to act as a medium tank.

So if they can make the healer stronger in melee, I will settle with a 4 character party:

-Fighter

-Cleric

-Rogue

-Mage



If no, then 5 character party is preferred.

[Auraad]

No please ... having to micro manage 4 characters I can say that I don't want another.

Besides, if you can have 5 or 6 chars, they'd be not strong or the game would need a re-balance. Not north the effort, me thinx...

[Hobojump]

5 member party would be good imo or even 6 as long as game automaticly becomes harder.This should have been implanted by the bioware.4 Party members with the usual difficulty and you can add all the orher companios to your party whichs adds +hp +damage and +number of mobs to encounters.So you could go around in a party of like 10 and beat up 30-40 ppl .That would be awesome!

[Ibian]

Auraad wrote...

No please ... having to micro manage 4 characters I can say that I don't want another.
Besides, if you can have 5 or 6 chars, they'd be not strong or the game would need a re-balance. Not north the effort, me thinx...

You don't have to micro anything. Just set up scripts.

And balance is a nonissue. Because it would be rebalanced. Freakin duh.

[Nemesis7884]

naa i dont like these rpg where you control 6 men... feels more like a rts then... a small group is better for rpgs i think...4 are perfect, even 3 would work fine

[mr_nameless]

6 all the way!!! 3 in the front (rogue, warrior type x2) and 3 in the back (ranged, magic attack, magic heals/status).

My favorite party group type from BG2 : Berserker, Assassin, Cleric, Archer, Conjurer, Shapeshifter

[rainmaker4]

I used the console to add Dog to my party so i'm playing with 5. It's a little tricky since the console adds dog as a party but does not add a profile pic on the left and there is no key binding for him (F1, F2 etc...). Thus, i have to manually click on Dog if i want him to attack anything. Also, it seems that none of Dog's abilities are working (they are all blanked out) so that sucks too. As of right now, i just put dog to attack any enemy that attacks Morrigan in Tactics so i don;t have to micromanage him.



Still, i just wanted to add Dog as a companion to the party for fun and not really to depend on for combat and stuff.



I read some posts on the console that adding certain party members may affect the gameplay in a negative way, so hopefully the addition of Dog is ok. Can anyone confirm this?

[Wolff Laarcen]

rainmaker4 wrote...
I read some posts on the console that adding certain party members may affect the gameplay in a negative way, so hopefully the addition of Dog is ok. Can anyone confirm this?

It will mess the game up if you add a character who isnt already in your group.  Say you decide to kill a character or just not pick them up but then you use the console to add them, all kinds of glitchy wierdness will ensure (i experimented with it).

[Chris_Really_Rocks]

Oscal wrote...

I also prefer 5:
-tank1 (assault)
-tank2 (defend)
-rogue/archer/ranger
-cleric/healer/bard
-mage

I agree that five is better.  I want a two fighter, 1 rogue, 1 healer, 1 mage party.  Since mage and healer are merged in DA:O, the first mage would be for healing and buff/debuffs, the second for CC and AOE.

[Chris_Really_Rocks]

Yeah, adding another character could cause ALL kinds of problems. All of the scripting probably assumes 4 character party.

[Sherish]

I have to agree with Makers, I'd like a fifth party slot just for Dog (therefore making him a permanent companion) - I really dislike not having Dog in my group - mainly just for the conversations having him in group creates from the other companions - watching Dog try to butter up Morrigan always makes me laugh!

Plus although admittedly I don't know the full lore of the game, I always *felt* that the morbari were permanent companions, never leaving the side of their imprinted, so having him as an optional companion has always felt wrong

Modifié par Sherish, 17 novembre 2009 - 03:58 .

[Cozarkian]

I'd prefer 3.



Tank, melee dps, ranged support (archer or mage)

or

Tank, ranged dps, magic support

[rainmaker4]

Chris_Really_Rocks wrote...

Yeah, adding another character could cause ALL kinds of problems. All of the scripting probably assumes 4 character party.

This might be true but i also read that these scripting problems will occur if you add say a NPC that has a speaking dialogue. But someone posted that because dog has no dialogue, it would be the only NPC to add to your party via the console which would be ok and not affect the game.  This kinda makes sense but just wanted to make sure.

I'm doing the redcliffe castle portion with dog as my 5th party and thus far, i do not notice any problems.

[Wolff Laarcen]

Been playing on nightmare with 5, its fun. I noticed on a scene in the mage tower right before the fade, that all 4 of the other characters i had with me were present and spoke.

[rainmaker4]

nice, but since dog doesn't have any dialogue, having him as an extra party shouldn't really affect gameplay IMO.