The origins system is starting to feel like something of an albatross around the neck of Larian in regards to this. Unlike DOS2, we have a lot more races and classes to consider, and a fixed class system. DOS2 was designed with the idea of being able to 'respec' essentially on the fly, classes being essentially meaningless from what I recall in terms of dialogue content, and combined with the smaller pool of playable races led itself for a much better match with their 'Origins' companions with a limited cast of party members.
D&D though, I think there's much more of an expectation that classes and races be represented as companions and that players will want to make their own avatar. We're getting something like four less companions (almost half of which are humans) than BG II, with several classes and races not being represented at all and no duplicates. There is the danger of the increased number of origins characters competing for resources that otherwise might go to more companions or refining the roleplay experience for 'Tav'. DOS2 was somewhat infamous for having a charname that was basically an undefined afterthought that was upstaged by each of their companions, who each had their own epic 'main character' backstory. in BG III each companion similarly has their own big 'main character' background/plot while Tav just makes do without. Sure, you might be looking at a slightly different experience as a drow, but that's about it. Why would I ever play a Warlock Tav, for example, if Wyll is right there and has this big plot involving his patron being kidnapped by the cultists and his history with the goblins of Act I interwoven with the main plot, and Warlock-Tav has none of that? etc.
IMO the game needed about half as many origins characters (if at all) and a bigger focus on Tav and non-origins companions.
