Stumbled over this info:

Q: Will companions be interchangeable during long rest?
A: Yes, at the start of your adventure your recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. Just like friends in real life!
--->>> After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.


Please reconsider. Concerns include:

- What happens if after Act 1, one of the companions leave due to their approval of me getting too low, or something about them is revealed that my character finds utterly repulsive so I don't want to travel with them anymore? Will I then be stuck with 3 party members, or even less, for the rest of the game? Or will I have to hire some silent henchmen to replace them, and miss out on the story & banter I could have had, if only I would have chosen the "right people" for me in Act 1?

- In BG2, I had the freedom of switching companions a lot for the entire length of the game to experience the stories of those I cared about, even when my party of 6 was too small to keep all of them at the same time, which will be even more of a problem when the party size limit of 4 remains the way it is (I hope not, different debate, but relevant here). Considering the amount of time required for one playthrough, and the increasing number of companions you are eventually going to offer us, not being able to carry over and switch companions within the same playthrough will not feel like "increasing replayability" but more like "artificially increasing the penalty for playing the game not often enough".

- Even in Act 1, I make a point of swapping companions before I do the content that is important for them (Githyanki patrol with Lae'Zel, Spike with Wyl etc.), and I plan on doing this for all companions. Finding out later that such efforts will basically be wasted because I somehow will lose all companions I haven't "committed to" via my tiny party of 4 will be very bad news. In DOS2 Fort Joy there were no such personal connections, so seeing them go wasn't as bad as it will definitely feel in BG1.

I personally don't mind that we don't have access to all NPCs throughout the game but instead of locking us in for the 3 people we pick at the end of ACT I (if that is indeed what they're planning to do, we don't really know for sure what "After the first act however you are going to have to commit" exactly means after all), I feel like we should be able to keep those companions in our camp that we've managed to establish some amount of rapport with (or other in-game justifications for why they're sticking around), and at least be able to switch out party members between that group.

Yes, by all means, those NPCs we have alienated (or whom we don't like for some reason) can go their own way, but there definitely needs to be a 'pool' to pick from at camp even after Act 1. *Especially* if party size stays 4.

Yeah, it could also serve as an achievement of sorts for the players, managing to convince the party members you really want to stick around even though they don't actually need to anymore. And Larian could build some companion quests with the option to either send them away or keep them in the NPC pool as the wrap-up. As a side-note, I'd love it if the whole camp mechanic had a bit of resource management to it, in terms of having food, water and such available but that's the simulationist in me talking and that probably won't ever be implemented

Not only I'm not too fond of the "commit to the initial choice" approach.
I'm even less fond of the idea that all companions will have to be introduced in the beginning AND be "playable origins". That is bound to severely limit their number and variety, not to mention the chances to surprise us later in the story with new potential allies.

I definitely agree with being able to freely interchange companions throughout the entire campaign. If party size is going to limited as greatly as it is, the important of having many companions to swap between for various scenarios is greater.

This is something that I agree with, I personally dislike the play as companion options that they want to implement in BG3, it was fine for their other games, but BG puts a huge focus on the world being filled with adventurers who can join in and help you at any moment.

I'm not a fan of this choice but it's one I could potentially learn to live with. The idea of new companions coming into the game later is cool in theory but I do understand why Larian wouldn't want to go that route; the later they come in the harder it is for them to be given equal depth to the characters that came early. But if they're going to give us a limited party size then this definitely has the potential to turn out badly. If they allow companions to leave you for choices you make then with a limited party that could be crippling and would severely hamstring roleplaying because we just couldn't afford to lose out on a companion. And sure we could replace them with a mercenary, they said that would be an option, but it's absolutely a sucky option to replace a fully fleshed out companion with a silent, empty husk. I think the best compromise would be that some companions leave but you can still have a couple remain with you after that that you can sub in.

So long as we get more companion options after Act 1, hopefully quite a few more, I don't mind being locked out of a few. They could come back into the story in interesting ways and add even more branching.

But if they're gone-gone like in DOS2, then no thanks.

I'm also gonna jump in on this request - Please don't make us pick a particular group of companions to drag through the remainder of our adventure. Leave the option open to change up our party, let them hang out in the camp.

Yes, there's the argument of increased replayability by cutting out a chunk of content in the form of companions, but it... just isn't *fun*.
Likewise it can be punishing if you happen to make a less optimal choice. Already due to party size limitations it feels like I'm forced to use a particular line-up, I'd hate for the option of further experimentation to be taken away.

100% agree with the OP. I really do hope they'll reconsider. Some of my thoughts on the subject below.

I am by no means saying you should be able to drag along every single recruitable character regardless of circumstances. But the limitation should come from story reasons. And by that I mean organic, believable, realistic story reasons that make sense and that FEEL like they make sense. Not "rocks fall, everyone dies" story reasons that are handwaved with whatever excuse. Good reasons would include: antagonizing a companion, a companions strongly disagreeing with your actions, incompatible companions. That's already a lot of limitations. Arbitrary locking your party is just... frustrating and imo brings no benefit.

To add to that, what about the later acts? If you are only able to have those 3 companions, you have to walk on eggshells if you don't want to become companionless. You have to concentrate more on appeasing companions than on roleplaying your character. Mercenaries aren't really a solution to losing a whole companion storyline.

Regarding replayability: I am strongly of the opinion that replayability should come from EXPANDING options, not limiting them. That and BG3 seems to have ridiculous replayability regardless of party composition. Additionally, should a player want to limit the current playthrough to 3 specific companions, there is nothing in the way of that. (Apart from, perhaps, conflicts as mentioned above.) It doesn't work the other way around.

Another matter is that, imo, it would be really nice to be able to send specialized teams for different "missions". You'd certainly send a druid to deal with a nature spirit and a rogue to deal with criminal underground.

It's made even worse by the party size of 4. Which means you'll only get to know well 3 companions per playthrough. I intend to play the game until I'm sick of it (after full release), but can't see myself playing it, say, 12 times, at least not in the first few years after release. Let's assume there will be 9 companions in the finished game (conservative guess). That means you'll need 3 playthroughs just to learn all companion stories (if playing as a custom character). That doesn't account for all the other variables, which, we are told, are numerous. Even if one disregards other game elements and just considers companions - those 3 playthroughs give us all companion stories, yes, but there are so many more combinations. We're going to miss out on most party interactions. If I'm not mistaken, there are 84 party combinations for 9 companions and 3 party slots. Of course, not every combination will matter and most interactions will likely be between two characters, not all three. But it's still a lot to miss out on, not just in one playthrough, but in multiple. In BG1&2, there were many interesting party interactions, and while few people would see all of them, a lot would see most of them. There were some interactions between three characters as well: like Xan intervening in certain instances of party-breaking conflicts. It might be different for a short 10-hour game intended for once-per-month replaying, but BG3 is a fully-sized RPG. I'm not saying any given player should see every secret and interaction (obscure, hidden "that's so cool!" stuff is really nice), but if most players are to miss most of the (companion-related) content despite playing several times? Not sure about that.

Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit, but I do believe the current approach to party comp (as it appears to work after Act I) is problematic to say the least.

Yes, this. Like you're telling me in a 80+ hour journey I meet 10+ companions in the first 15-20 hours? Is there NO ONE out there that is worth adventuring with and also wants to join us for w/e? That feels so gamey and opposite of immersive. Not to mention, are they ALL going to somehow have a tadpole? Just so they do their "Origin" playable crap? That is so far from immersive that hey, you only stay with 3 other companions, bye all! Hated it in OS2, hate it here. No idea why Larian are so adamant about some of their designs from game to game, even when its terrible.

Oh boy, more reasons to kill their origin characters on site and just make our own entire party

Not much to say other than I agree, +1, etc. I didn't like it in DOS2 and I don't like the idea of it in BG3.

+1

D:OS2 would have been better, too, if the inactive companions were waiting or , instead of .

Also "competitive-cooperative multiplayer" was only annoying and something to "work around" (by deciding who did what and who gets to win the next event, etc...).

It made sense in DOS2. I don't think it does for BG3. Please no to the companion commitment.

Honestly inns and taverns serve a purpose in DND settings. Replacing the camp with places like that make sense.

In Baldurs gate (both 1 and 2) your companions moved to fixed locations where you could pick them up. A simular system would be fine imo.

I also agree that there should be companion options that aren't part of the core "playable" options further along in the story. Even if they are slightly less engaging. It is fun sometimes to find that warrior whose only response is in grunts most of the time, that you can manage to get a few key lines of dialogue out of once and awhile, or a monk that has taken a vow of silence... though I guess that becomes less true if you are able to read their thoughts later... hmm...

If there is a good story reason for it like the companions you don't choose turn into mind flayers and become major villains in the story later I'm okay with the idea of having to pick which companions you are able to save. I was attacked in the night by Astarion and decided he was annoying and more trouble than he was worth anyway and decided to kill him. If it is just an arbitrary thing to cut down on how much of the story you can experience in one playthrough though I'm kind of against that.

I also wouldn't mind if someone hopped into the party occasionally as a companion type creature for a zone or something as long as we were given the option to take them or not. Just no escort quests

We don't know this yet. There may be some story contrivance to justify it.

Personally I don't want character lock-in either. I want to grow attached to my party members, and having a stable of backups lets you swap them out for different utilities as the situation demands. It was slightly more justifiable in D:OS2 because anyone could do anything and could be re-specced on a whim, but with D&D you're locked into your class and I guess now limited to 4 of them? woof. I want to choose my party for personality and not be forced to bring someone along because I need their skills.

I'm against this "commit after act 1" thing simply because we don't have any control over the character's class choices. Shadowheart is a terrible character, and should not be a cleric. She should be the warlock, and Wyll should be a paladin or cleric. But anyway, we have no control over the character's classes. they're all pre-determined. In divinity 2 we could turn the characters into any class we wanted. If we're going to have to "commit" to characters, then give us this same freedom.

However, I am against this "commitment" idea all together as well. just keep everyone bloody alive, Larian... it's so cheap to make us have to stick to 4 forever.

I also really, really dislike this decision. Unless there's some incredible payoff for killing off all but 3 of the companions (and no, turning them all into mindflayers isn't an incredible payoff) I don't think it's worth it. I'm really interested in seeing how, for example, Lae'zel's story evolves over the game. But if you make me pick 3 am I going to pick the most abrasive companion in the game? No, I'm definitely not.



Well said. If I have to choose between Shadowheart and Lae'zel in a standoff? Sure. If Wyll bails because I'm too blatantly evil? Sure. These make for great story moments. I don't expect to be able to keep every single companion over the entire game. But trying to force "replayability" by arbitrarily locking off all but 3 of the companions really sucks.

The more I hear about this game the more it is lacking behind Baldur`s Gate 2. Just wow.

the game feels like it needs a few more companions available, party size could do with being five characters too, rather than 4.

the actual companions should just be companions, drop the origin character thing and let us make our own character and simply meet interesting people along the journey.

a bit more diversity in the feel of the characters would be idea.

we should be able to change who is in the party throughout most of the game except where we fall out with a companion to the point they wont work with us anymore.

For what it's worth, Larian's mentioned that the npcs we have are the 'evil' ones, or at least the less likeable ones, that are in the game. I believe there's going to be one NPC for every class? They deliberately picked this roster since most players would go "evil, yuck" and ditch them.

100% agree with this. Playing as an origin character in DOS2 just felt like you were playing through somebody else's story - each of the companions had explicit goals apart from the main storyline, and you'd find out basic facts about them halfway through the game. The dialogue tags made me feel kind of obligated to pick whichever choice the character was 'supposed' to go with. And even if you didn't play as one, you'd get spoilers from the character selection screen at the start of the game.