Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Which companion(s) won't make it?

My party will consist of Shadowheart, Gale and Wyll in case I'm going to play as Barbarian or Shadowheart, Gale and Lae'zel in case I'll be a Ranger; Wyll or Lae'zel will be the reserve then. Minthara will get gutted for sure, the rest can idle in the camp.

Same thing. They use the titles interchangably. Mouse over Kagha and it'll say "Archdruid" under her name for instance. But if you need a direct mention:

Agreed, either, they use that title wrong or Halsin has somehow lost power.

As for the werebear theory: I would like it, because then his sudden changes make sense, but that would mean, there is no chance for Helia at all anymore.

Honestly he seems way too low level a character to be arch anything. In 5e to become an archdruid you must be a level 20 druid and have a wisdom of 20. So the title definitely seems badly misused. Hopefully this has been fixed for the full release of the game.

Where is this rule from that you need to be level 20 and wisdom 20 in 5e to be an arch druid? Are you comparing it to a monster profile or something? I never saw anything about that.


I hate systems where levels are combined with 'titles'. Well I hate systems that use levels because its incredibly artificial, but that's another topic. I think Larian's approach dealing with levels and backgrounds simply doesn't work in D&D. D&D is not made to completely split background from levels because abilities are tied to it. Nobody cares what level Shepard or Geralt are, the progress is too fluid and kept vague not really being felt in the story. But a powerful druid being level 4-5 just doesn't work... nor a Jaheira with less than level 12 to be fair.

Nevermind, I made a mistake, that appears to be homebrew so no need for 20 wisdom. But in 5e Archdruid is a feat given when you hit 20th level druid. Either way you MUST be a level 20 druid to be an archdruid. It is definitely laughable to think of a character bellow level 5 as an "Archdruid" and a blatant mistake in early access.

Power loss as a result of joining the PC's party maybe?

I think the Larian writers are playing a little loose with the title stuff. They probably put it in as a title meaning "leader," thinking it designates a "level of achievement" as opposed to a "level." Just my opinion, of course, but that's what I suspect.

*

Maybe I'm wrong, but is that Nettie dialogue the same now? I think it may be slightly different, without the archdruid reference. Again, I could be wrong. I'll try to check a little later when I have some time to load the game.

I personally think he is the First Druid and because the circle is tiny and in the middle of nowwhere, they only have a relative "weak" First Druid.
But because Circles are usually led my Archdruids, they sometimes call him that, even though he technically isn't one.

Kinda like calling your physician "doctor", even if he hasn't gotten a PhD.

Viconia was actually a cool character and now I remember romancing her too...haha.

but in this game I will avoid this Minthara...and travel with Karlach.

I hope she will be the coolest companion of all...maybe the female equivalent of Hellboy.

I voted for Minthara because I'm not going to side with the goblins. However, I usually kill Astarion when he tries to suck my blood and I usually kill Lae'zel because she's racist and evil. I plan to play on Tactician with a Wood Elf Feylock (not the strongest class), so I feel like I need to minmax my companions, which means I may need to keep evil companions in the party to fight the greater evil. (In my head canon, I tell them when it's over, the alliance ends.) If I respec Lae'zel as a Wizard, she's better than Gale and I don't need Wyll because I'm playing a Warlock, so at least I get rid of the weakling humans (oops, maybe Lae'zel is growing on me).

I really want to play (but not necessarily roleplay) a deep gnome shadow monk, so I expect I'm going to need a mercenary, too.

Minthara is honestly my favorite and I really don't care that much about game morality...I am genuinely sick of generic good endings. In a certain game that shall not be named(*cough* DOS2 *cough*) the best ending was you die! Congratulations! And in other good endings you became a soulless zombie. Yay! Sweet victory! Or in the bad ending you just released the big bad on the world and everyone was screwed. Nah, I'm done with all that...in this game we get to be able to become ruler of the forgotten realms and all prime material plane then sure. I'll stab whoever Swen says needs to be stabbed.

As for Lae'zel...I mean she's a Githyanki, what do you expect? But while Githyakis are evil aligned you should not be so quick to judge them...they are the only thing keeping the Illithids from conquering all of the planes. Illithids are insanely intelligent cosmic monstrosities that originated from outer space...making them the only space faring species in D&D. Much of that technology is lost to them at this point as they have been hunted nearly to extinction by the Gith. Granted the other species have magic and they can travel between planes with magic like the planeshift spell among other passages and sorts but even the least of the Illithids has the intellect of a genius. It is also believed they escaped extinction by traveling through time and it is believed it may be inevitable that they will once again rule over everything eventually. Soo...you know...the next time you see a friendly neighborhood Githyanki around camp give her a hug. Well...maybe not, she might stab you, but you know...don't kill her or kick her out lol.

I do not kill companions just because I disagree with them about ethics (or anything else, really). It's their life to live, not mine (man, how often did I use that sentence in RL debates lately). If they did something I can't tolerate, I'd still prefer to go separate ways rather than kill them.

Having said that, if things turn out, by the way I navigate the plot, that we end up on opposite sides, then that's too bad. I'd like to come to know Minthara, but since I won't side with the goblins as a rule she'll likely end up dead almost every time.

Everyone else, I hope to keep alive.

careful about being too tolerant though...in this game ALL companions are particularly dangerous and they aren't mindless drones following you. They all have plans and schemes...follow them blindly or just be too nice and unquestioning and you'll probably end up dead. One is a vampire, one was one of the most powerful archmages in existence who romanced and betrayed the goddess of magic, one is on a very important quest directly in service for the goddess of secrets and dark magic, etc. etc. etc. Let your guard down or just follow someone without questioning and you'll probably end up in over your head. They are all very VERY dangerous people.

Even Astarion? He's a bloody vampire spawn ... which means he's evil and rotten to the core with no redeeming features whatsoever. Allowing such an abomination to exist is unthinkable.

I'm tolerant, not stupid. The Githyanki think they're the master race and Lae'zel is typical, so I did not go to the Githyanki with her in my first playthrough until I'd tried everything else, on the rationale that they might think it's easier to just kill me to get rid of the mindworm infestation. I certainly did not react favorably to Gale's advances even though we're both arcane spellcasters, and I won't kill half the druid grove just to get him that statue of Silvanus.

So it's possible I'll get into an irreconcilable conflict with some. But you know, I don't want mindless followers, I want as companions dangerous people with minds of their own.

Apparently ... not for everyone.

Who speaks there? A particularly fundamentalist paladin? I judge everyone as an individual, and so far he's done nothing that justifies killing. Being a vampire doesn't mean anything but that you require blood to survive and you have certain unusual traits, such as not dying from old age. Have you played BG2? Those liches you destroy on your misplaced quest to get Kangaxx his bones? They were actually good, they had sacrificed themselves to guard those bones beyond their mortal lives in order to prevent the evil uber-lich Kangaxx from returning.

Undead abomination are abominations though.
There are actually a loot of people that have a "kill on sight" policy for undead. Druids (Spore-Druids dislike intelligent Undead), Followers of Kelemvor, Lathander and a bunch of other deities.

And generally, good-aligned undead are extremely rare and need specific circumstances. Vampires on the other hand actually have drastic personality shifts upon becoming Vampires. Though I am unsure if this extends to spawns.

(Yes, I do kill him most of the times when he tries to drink my blood..)

Actually a fundamentalist Kelemvorite... undead are an abomination in Kelemvor's eyes and must be destroyed.

And no, I've never played BG2 that far... I hate the tutorial (Jon Irenicus' dungeon) so much, it actually turned me off from playing and I most likely won't do it ever again.

But I never understood the desire for playing vampires outside of WoD (and even there I'd rather play a werewolf or a hunter). As for Astarion ... Being a vampire means a lot more than just being immortal in D&D...