Respecing written companions to everyone's favourite class just ends up watering it down for everyone.
If I turn Astarion into a wizard, how does this affect you?
I think it's more to do with how does this affect the personality of a character that is now a main character. Right now, the characters have established a strong alignment with their role. Their personalities in my opinion fit that role. Let's guess what would happen if Astarion was a wizard. My guess is that the range of possible stories for Asterion as a character become more limited to accomodate this feature (like it was in DOS 2 , I had very limited side quests or background knowledge of my companions and I wanted to learn more)
You guys do realize that this option is for when you're PLAYING as Astarion as your main character? If you don't want your character to be a vampire thrall wizard... play him as the vampire thrall rogue he defaults to.
I think I would have to side with the OP on this one. Since Astarion seems to be the topic of choice let's roll with it. A lot of the dialogue I've come across with him has been very rogue. To have him as some wizard or maybe cleric for w/e reason the dialog would really feel out of place. Lae'zel and Shadowheart I can't really say the same for so far, but my god Gale especially rolled as a Fighter or god forbid a Barbarian when that's a thing would be jarring to say the least. And to a degree I think a solid character should be influenced and shaped by everything that character is for better or worse.
I personally disagree, and think it should be allowed because you can simply choose to leave them the default class. If it's not in the game I can't choose to change their class anyway unless I can somehow cheat it in. This'll let people bring companions they actually like in their playthroughs, instead of bringing certain classes. Ex: Right now I want to bring Astarion along, but I want to play a rogue as well, so it's kind of sub-optimal to do so. As for it affecting their story or personality... you don't really need to be a warlock to make a deal with a demon (devil?), and wizards are just as capable of being abrasive as fighters.
I agree with OP and a lot of you that classes of our companions should not be mutable, since Larian has put a lot of effort into creating a backstory story for these characters as they stand and they are, after all, meant to be NPCs that we control. It just helps Larian create a more interesting story, which... I believe is what most of us are here for? You don't see us going to Pikachu and telling it to become a water type cause we're missing a water type in our squad of pokemon; you caught a Pikachu... congrats you caught an Electric type, move on to capture a water type somewhere else in the map.
However, in the spirit of all RPGs, if someone wants to play as an Origin character with a separate class, who are we to force them to play a certain class as that character? I think that we should allow players to customize their main character, be it Origin or Custom, as their heart desires. Since after all, we, as players, have control of the dialogue of our created character... I think it would be safe to say that by creating a character form an Origin background, you're effectively removing the companion of similar name from play, and lose all dialogues and backstories related to this character. Harsh? Maybe, but hey... you chose to pick a premade character instead of actually being creative and building your own persona in game... I think you had it coming. I do think though, that we should increase the size to the party to maybe 6? That way we get to see how these NPCs backstories untangle... and also to have more party synergy hehehe.
TL;DR: Larian don't add the option to change NPCs' classes just cause they're inconvenient to the player, but do allow players to create whatever main character they'd like to make with its own consequences. Also, can we have a bigger group so more dialogues and synergies can be observed in the playthrough?
I also don't really think allowing Origins to switch classes is a great idea. For many it won't make sense. Some ideas from fans are ones which should be ignored. Sometimes Larian's desire to give as much freedom to players as possible can result in a weaker story.
If they're really intent on allowing class changes, I don't remember who posted this, but the best idea I heard for this was that Origins always start out at level 1 in that class, that class can't be changed, and only starting at level 2 do you get to multiclass into a class of your choosing. You would be able to change your abilities and most other things, but the level 1 class would be fixed and unchangeable.
I feel the same about some of the characters whose story is tied directly to their class, specifically Wyll and Shadowheart. However, I think any arcane class would probably be fine for Gale, and the other two really don't have any of their personality wrapped up in their class.
le'eazel = Her goals in life would conflict with her being a wizard, rogue, and a few other classes. The fact of every word out of her mouth is abrassive, egotistical, abusive, and threatening to some degree or another means she can really only be 1 of 2 things Fighter, or Barbarian. Then there are a few other things that would be utterly stupid to have on another class. her skills as well are made for being a front liner/damage dealer in melee
Ast = slimey, but charismatic, a flair for dramatics, every word, even the way he talks screams only Rogue, or Bard. his skills as well make him a rogue, not even bard.
so every companion is built around their class or one nearly identical. yet if you toss them into that nearly identical class they wouldn't be worth much.
So no seriously keep them just the way they are.
You do realize their skills are based entirely on the class they've been given by default right? While I don't think they should let us change the Origin character's classes to any other class, this argument doesn't make much sense. Of course Astarion's skills make him a rogue, it's because he's using the rogue class. His skills would obviously change to the skills of whatever class he's changed to. They could make him a barbarian instead of a rogue companion and his skills would fit a barbarian class because that's literally where they come from. His personality wouldn't fit it, which is a valid point, but skills don't make any difference.
I disliked this feature in DOS 2, since it stripped down all the companions of of most of their identity. I feel it would be an even poorer fit for the D&D ruleset and setting.
Not everything that is convenience for the player on the immediate distance makes a game better.
And let's be honest... The feature was in DOS 2 to compensate for the extremely low number of companions available, the mere suggestion it will be in BG3 hints at a similar problem.
As of now, my number 1 fear is an underwhelming number of companions. It's looking likely that aspect is not going to change.
Larian very clearly appears to be building their origin characters to provide a "few quality characters" instead of what I remember being much more a diverse party situation in the previous Baldur's Gates. It also appears that you're meant to "lock in" your choices by the end of Act 1 (sounds familiar... D:OS2) and then you're using that party for the rest of the game.
I want to be the focus of the campaign- my character. The rest of the party is just that- the party.
Why we need to change the class, outfit, personality, etc of these other characters boggles my mind. Instead of making an alternative Astarion, make an actual alternative to Astarion. Provide me another Rogue that I can party with. Curb their interactions to be limited and minimize VA needs. Get Jim Cummings to do a few random voice lines and make some shallow characters I don't mind losing in a fight versus the local goblins.
It simply feels like the goal is to push as far away from BG style gameplay as possible. Currently there is very little that feels reminiscent of BG.
I think I would have to side with the OP on this one. Since Astarion seems to be the topic of choice let's roll with it. A lot of the dialogue I've come across with him has been very rogue. To have him as some wizard or maybe cleric for w/e reason the dialog would really feel out of place. Lae'zel and Shadowheart I can't really say the same for so far, but my god Gale especially rolled as a Fighter or god forbid a Barbarian when that's a thing would be jarring to say the least. And to a degree I think a solid character should be influenced and shaped by everything that character is for better or worse.
Astarion could quite easily be a wizard, fighter, etc. Background, class, and personality are entirely different.
I think I would have to side with the OP on this one. Since Astarion seems to be the topic of choice let's roll with it. A lot of the dialogue I've come across with him has been very rogue. To have him as some wizard or maybe cleric for w/e reason the dialog would really feel out of place. Lae'zel and Shadowheart I can't really say the same for so far, but my god Gale especially rolled as a Fighter or god forbid a Barbarian when that's a thing would be jarring to say the least. And to a degree I think a solid character should be influenced and shaped by everything that character is for better or worse.
Background, class, and personality are entirely different.
le'eazel = Her goals in life would conflict with her being a wizard, rogue, and a few other classes. The fact of every word out of her mouth is abrassive, egotistical, abusive, and threatening to some degree or another means she can really only be 1 of 2 things Fighter, or Barbarian. Then there are a few other things that would be utterly stupid to have on another class. her skills as well are made for being a front liner/damage dealer in melee
That isn't her class talking that is her culture. There are Githyanki of every class except for Paladin and they are all like that. They are a very angry race fighting an eternal war across the planes under the rule of a Chaotic Evil Lich-Queen. They couldn't even overthrow her is they wanted to because she kills any that start to get to power, and long before they get powerful enough to challenge her.
I think I would have to side with the OP on this one. Since Astarion seems to be the topic of choice let's roll with it. A lot of the dialogue I've come across with him has been very rogue. To have him as some wizard or maybe cleric for w/e reason the dialog would really feel out of place. Lae'zel and Shadowheart I can't really say the same for so far, but my god Gale especially rolled as a Fighter or god forbid a Barbarian when that's a thing would be jarring to say the least. And to a degree I think a solid character should be influenced and shaped by everything that character is for better or worse.
Background, class, and personality are entirely different.
No, it is a fact. You can have a smooth criminal cleric. A greedy charlatan paladin. A prideful barbarian scholar (NERD RAGE!).
No, it is a fact. You can have a smooth criminal cleric. A greedy charlatan paladin. A prideful barbarian scholar (NERD RAGE!).
The backstories are very connected to their classes though. Gale for example, is more than just a prideful scholar, he is intimately connected to the Weave and chosen by Mystra the goddess of magic. Hardly makes sense for a fighter to be the consort of the goddess of magic and experiment with Netherese magic.
but, as someone pointed out, how does their origins affect the story when you choose one to be played as the main character? will the dialogue options change based on their class, background etc or will it be the same as for a custom created main char? If it's the latter I don't really see a problem with people being able to change the class and skill set but ofc it would change the origins chars to mere aesthetic husks for that player.
Edit: Oops, by reading the official FAQ I realized we're talking about changing their class when recruiting them, not when choosing them as playable chars in the start of a new game. And for that option I heavily agree with the thread title. Redistributing their ability points I could see as a nice option, but changing their class. no. no. no. just no, don't do it.
I was reading some origins file and saw that Astarion, Laezel, Gale, Shadowheart, and Wyll have attributes set to them to allow for them to have other classes.
I believe that allowing these characters to deviate from their intended theme ruins immersion (not to mention that their personalities fit their roles).
That being said, I wouldn't mind if say Gale can choose to be a wizard or a sorcerer, Astarian can choose to be a rogue or a bard (if that ever happens), etc...
You're attempting to do what you did in DOS 2... Please don't. DOS 2 was a great game, but this game is different from DOS 2 thematically.
EDIT: I see lots of posts deviating from the subject. This is related to character creation. My opinion still holds because I feel like these characters will no longer be themselves.
I agree, I would rather have companion stick to one class. Having companion that can be anything just dilute their identity and what/who they are. Minsc could only be a warrior, and edwin could only be a mage. I'd keep it like that, because its part of who the character is. However, I don't mind multiclassing after, like we could do with Imoen in BG2. just keep the base class please.
Last edited by Hachina; 15/10/2007:49 PM.
If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt
No, it is a fact. You can have a smooth criminal cleric. A greedy charlatan paladin. A prideful barbarian scholar (NERD RAGE!).
The backstories are very connected to their classes though. Gale for example, is more than just a prideful scholar, he is intimately connected to the Weave and chosen by Mystra the goddess of magic. Hardly makes sense for a fighter to be the consort of the goddess of magic and experiment with Netherese magic.
He could easily be a paladin of mystra/azuth, a cleric of mystra/azuth, a sorcerer, an eldritch knight, a bard, an arcane trickster, etc. Moreover, if you would get so butthurt about swapping his class... dont? I'm not sure what it matters to you if someone else changes their Gale in their playthrough. Or do you simply have to dictate their tastes as well as your own?
Or do you simply have to dictate their tastes as well as your own?
No, but we are still entitled to have an opinion on where Larian should put company resources....
I personally see a LOT of other aspects of the game needing work before they decide to use time and money to add optional dialogue fitting to every possible class for each origin character.
In the end every design choice is ofc up to Larian and I'm pretty sure there won't be a single consumer agreeing with all of them. But having everything as a togglable choice is not good game design. The equivalent would be a store owner telling a couple who can't decide on which dining table to buy, to buy a pile of planks, some tools and go build one their self since the tables in the store don't seem to fit their combined needs. To be able to release a defined great product that you're happy with that's not overly complex, you have no option but to start killing your darlings. And OP and others agreeing with him/her suggests that this is one of those darlings that should go.
I'll admit to be entirely confused by this whole Origins subject...
Is this intended for players that can't be bothered to create a Protagonist so they just play as one of the stock companions?
What a truly terrible idea that would be for a Baldur's Gate game.
I mean I can understand the rationale, if the target audience is ultra casual console players, but that's a wildly disappointing design decision for the most anticipated PC game of a generation. I guess it might explain the party cap at 4 as well, so that everyone can have their own Switch controller somewhere down the line? Gah! What a nightmare
If rolling an original character to be the protagonist in a Baldur's Gate game is too much effort, they're probably going to find literally everything else about Dungeons and Dragons too daunting and annoying to manage with much enjoyment.
The goal should be to get the noob all super invested and stoked by the char creation process, using that as the hook. Not like the DM saying 'check out the awesome character I made for you! Now who's ready for the adventure!?'
Originally Posted by Icelement
Originally Posted by Tuco
I disliked this feature in DOS 2, since it stripped down all the companions of of most of their identity. I feel it would be an even poorer fit for the D&D ruleset and setting.
Not everything that is convenience for the player on the immediate distance makes a game better.
And let's be honest... The feature was in DOS 2 to compensate for the extremely low number of companions available, the mere suggestion it will be in BG3 hints at a similar problem.
As of now, my number 1 fear is an underwhelming number of companions. It's looking likely that aspect is not going to change.
Larian very clearly appears to be building their origin characters to provide a "few quality characters" instead of what I remember being much more a diverse party situation in the previous Baldur's Gates. It also appears that you're meant to "lock in" your choices by the end of Act 1 (sounds familiar... D:OS2) and then you're using that party for the rest of the game.
I want to be the foc us of the campaign- my character. The rest of the party is just that- the party.
Why we need to change the class, outfit, personality, etc of these other characters boggles my mind. Instead of making an alternative Astarion, make an actual alternative to Astarion. Provide me another Rogue that I can party with. Curb their interactions to be limited and minimize VA needs. Get Jim Cummings to do a few random voice lines and make some shallow characters I don't mind losing in a fight versus the local goblins.
It simply feels like the goal is to push as far away from BG style gameplay as possible. Currently there is very little that feels reminiscent of BG.
I'm suddenly so much more nervous about the direction of the game than I was 10 minutes ago before realizing this was a thing lol
I was reading some origins file and saw that Astarion, Laezel, Gale, Shadowheart, and Wyll have attributes set to them to allow for them to have other classes.
I believe that allowing these characters to deviate from their intended theme ruins immersion (not to mention that their personalities fit their roles).
That being said, I wouldn't mind if say Gale can choose to be a wizard or a sorcerer, Astarian can choose to be a rogue or a bard (if that ever happens), etc...
You're attempting to do what you did in DOS 2... Please don't. DOS 2 was a great game, but this game is different from DOS 2 thematically.
EDIT: I see lots of posts deviating from the subject. This is related to character creation. My opinion still holds because I feel like these characters will no longer be themselves.
based on the mod that unlocks origins, I think it's safe to assume you won't be able to change origin character's class.
I mostly agree. Would be nice to see more companions added in too. Companions of races and classes currently not in the game.
I'm more concerned about having companions that fit better with my choices in the game. At the moment 3 of the companions simply don't like my choices so eventually will end up with negative opinion and possibly leave? I shouldn't have to alter how I play my character to allow me keep incompatible companions. Wasn't such an issue in DOS2 as generally their opinion was only really impacted by decisions around their own quests, whereas these ones chime in on most decisions i make.
The current companions bar 1/2 tend to be on the evil side or at least very different viewpoints from the normal 'hero' type characters, which some may like but it feels like you're being forced down the road of taking companions you don't want and won't get on with.
