As far as being able to just switch between who's speaking in a single player game I am going to have to disagree. The character who carries on any conversation/ makes checks in that conversation should be the character you chose at character creation OR the character you have selected atm dialog begins, but switching between your PC and the companions mid dialog would cause a lot of meta gaming. [...]
I'm sorry to hear that you disagree. But this is exactly what I, and other players, want. For at least 2 very good reasons.
- Immersion/verisimilitude. We are a group of adventurers. We are all there together during the conversation. Don't you think it would make sense that we can all talk ?
Picture this scene : the Bard tried to persuade the guard to let the team through as the party needs to speak to the master of the place. The guard is too stubborn, it doesn't work. The Barbarian moves forward with the intention of threatening violence ... but the Bard stops them : "sorry mate, this is my conversation ... you can try your gig next time, but right now, if I fail, we'll just have to kill the guard or turn back". That would be ridiculous, in my opinion. It wouldn't happen this way in a non-interactive story-telling media (book, film, etc), nor in real life, so I don't see why we should do it in that unrealistic way in a video game or tabletop RPG. - Party-based RPG. There is that sentence on one of the loading screens : "Adventuring alone is a hard road. Gathering a balanced party makes everything easier, from conversation to combat". The whole point of being a party and have characters specialising in different skills is that, if we build our party a certain way (a balanced, well-rounded way), we can in principle handle all sorts of situation. If we are forbidden to switch Speaker during a conversation, it defeats the whole purpose of having a wide range of conversation skills in the party.
Finally, and I'm sorry to have to say this but ... if you feel switching Speaker would be un-satisfying play, then just don't do it. Very minor inconvenience to you, if any. At the moment, those of us who think it is a lot more reasonable and satisfying to switch are forced to roll ahead with the sub-optimal Speaker and reload to try with the specialist if it fails. That's more inconvenient. (And also more meta-gaming, since I'd carefully choose who initiate the conversation based on the knowledge of what checks will be required in it.)
Okay, so you have swayed my opinion a little bit on this. Maybe you should be allowed to switch characters mid dialog, BUT you have to do it before you can see the possible responses.
We will use your example of the Bard and Barbarian: The Bard Starts the conversation and tries to persuade the guard, but fails (and either you have no inspiration or choose not to waste it on this check). Once it fails the guard responds rebuffing the Bard. I would say it would be at THAT point is when you'd have to decide if you want to switch party members not knowing what next set of dialog options will be (unless you have played that scene trough several times and well then you know and more power to you I guess). In this example yeah an intimidation check is likely to be an option so switching to your Barbarian is probably a good idea, but still there is a chance you could be wrong. The reason I think the switch should have to be done BEFORE you see the dialog options is because in a TT session if I start a conversation and roll for persuasion and fail, the DM doesn't typically say "Well if you like you can attempt to intimidate the guard." the person playing the Barbarian decides on their own to attempt to interject either by stating what they say to the guard and the DM responding "Okay make an intimidation check" or the player playing the barbarian asks "can I roll to intimidate the guard?" and in the second case (at least in my experience) the DM will follow up that request with "What do you do/say?" before okaying the check. Luckily in a lot if not most case in BG3 I have noticed that in dialog that requires a CHA check (either intimidation, deception or persuasion) you are quite often given at least two options.
Also, IF Larian were to implement this ability then they I think they should also program different responses for the different characters (either based on class/race for the PC and that fit the Companions' various personalities) that the others may not have. I don't mean just for flavor like replacing one bit of dialog for another but having the same check or simply replacing a regular intimidation check for a berserker intimidation check, I mean literally different options.
So using our friends the Bard and the Barbarian as examples The Bard starts the convo tries to persuade the guard but fails, the guard responds rebuffing the bard. Now before seeing the options you have to choose who is going to respond to the guard. Since Bards are about as intimidating as a chihuahua choosing to move forward with them might result in choices being another persuasion check with a bribe or a deception check to lie your way in, however choosing to switch to your Barbarian (which usually are blunt as a hammer) would open up an intimidation check, but of course (unless you've played through this scene at least once probably more) using my suggestion you won't know till you make that choice.
Also just as a side note I think special versions of checks should have auto bonuses to them that the normal ones don't it shouldn't just be flavor... Example a Barbarian Intimidation check should get like I dunno a +2 over a normal intimidation check IMHO
