Hello!

I have been really enjoying the game that I have played so far! And I am super excited to see where all it goes. I have one suggestion I would like to make. (If other people have addressed it, forgive me). So this is my official suggestion! I think that we shouldn't be locked to a single party after act 1. I would love to be able to continue to swap party members around and interact with them for the entire campaign. Below are a few points for why I have listed.

1) Forced Replaying. 5 companions are already in EA, and I know that more are going to be added. I don't know the numbers, but my personal guess is somewhere between 8 & 12 total. Thus, if I wanted to experience the story & character development of each companion, I would need to replay the game 3+ times (assuming that I play a custom character each time). While I'm not against replaying a game, unfortunately I am an adult, and don't have the time to replay this game as much as I might like to. I would like to be able to have a full experience of the characters, and their stories through the game, without having to replay the game multiple times. Sure, I might replay it more than once, but either way, a locked party is more like locking a good chunk of the game away.

2) Party Composition. I think an example best explains this point. E.g. I really want my custom character to be a wizard. However, I really like Gale. After act 1, I would have to make a choice. Either have two wizards in my party, or get rid of Gale. I feel like this is a forced choice that doesn't add much to the actual game, when instead you could be allowed to have a party comp you enjoy playing, while still able to interact with the characters you want.

3) Locked Parties sucks some of the fun away. I would like the full enjoyment of the game when I first truly get to playing it once it releases. However, if I am put in a situation where I have 8 companions and maybe I really like 4 or 5 of them, either way I have to get rid of two companions I really like just because my party doesn't fit it. Instead, I would love to see each companion throughout the story of the game. Party interactions, and companion interactions are probably one of my favorite things about RPGs, and restricting it after Act 1 would really diminish the enjoyment of it. Plus, there are situations where I might really dislike a character, but I really want to see their story, and progression. I may not want them in my party all the time, but I want them in my camp.

4) Flexibility & playing with party comps. I like to shake up my party occasionally. It helps when I feel like I hit a rut, or things get stagnant. So, one thing I sometimes like to do with change my party comp. It shakes things up, it stimulates my mind, it is something I like to do. I like to play around with builds, and party composition ideas. However, if the party is locked, then I am heavily restricted with this, except through hirelings. But hirelings are largely flavorless companions. I wouldn't want to give up a flavorful companion and their interactions, for a flavorless hireling. I also like to adapt to circumstances. I like to bring companions who I think might have some interesting interactions with characters. Like bringing the vampire when dealing with vampires, for example. However, if I am locked out, then for 2 acts I am stuck with my party and lose out on so much cool story and interactions. If I want to try a different party comp out, a companion leaves, dies, or something else, I either can't cause I have no one to swap with, or I have to use a hireling, which is lacking in personality and flavor.

5) Personal preference. Personally, companions are my favorite part about the role-playing aspect of roleplaying games. I like the party dynamics, interactions. I like characters getting upset with my decisions or approving of them. I already got some eye rolls from Shadowheart, and Lae'zel already shared her disapproval of my actions. It made me roll my eyes in turn, and I liked it. Just as I liked my character gelling with Asterion, or Wyll. I would like to experience it fully, rather than partially. I would like to see the dynamics of all the companions through the game, and not just a select 3, just because they might work better for my party comp.

6) DOS2. I will be up front, I didn't like this design decision in DOS2. However, It was more forgivable in that game, as you had only 6 options (not counting DLC). While it did hurt me to cut 3 of the companions, because I REALLY wanted to see all of their perspectives, and haven't gotten around to playing it again yet, I dealt with it. Because it was what it was. But here, the game is in Early Access, and you have requested feedback, so now here is mine. Please allow those of us that want all the companions to remain in our party, that wish to, to keep them in our camp, and to be able to swap companions out after Act 1. I don't think a locked party adds to the experience, but takes away from it. A companion dying, might add to it. Not being allowed to have more than 3 companions in your camp (not counting followers) after Act 1, just because you have to "commit," doesn't add to it. Here, we already have 5, and I am already torn as I consider the options. Adding more companions, that I have to get rid of for 2/3 of the game, leaves a sour taste in my mouth. (Having said that, I did really enjoy DOS2. I just didn't like that design choice).
Edit: In DOS2, there was no class system. You could adapt any companion to be any role, and any build. Such is not the case in BG3.

Conclusion, I hope it doesn't come across as me ranting or anything. And hopefully I got my point across. I just wanted to share my opinions, and suggestions on this topic. I am also greatly interested in hearing your (Larian's) reason for the limitation post act 1. Perhaps I can get on board with your reasoning? Either way, I intend to play the game at launch, and to be along for the ride of EA.

All the love, and helpful songs of a hopeful Baldur's Gate 3 bard,
Vilthus

I wholeheartedly agree. Keeping your companions in your camp should at very least be an option.

They would have to deviate too much from the D:OS structure they are used to, lol. No one cared because there was no TRUE class system in D:OS and their backgrounds didn't have anything to do with their class/skills/abilities/attributes/quest and you could respec anyone on the fly. Almost no one played D:OS for the Story. It wouldn't have made a difference on that game, over here could be a different story if they tweak a lot of the current mechanics since they have the camp feature like in Dragon's Age.

agreed. DO NOT lock the party Larian, this is going to piss a LOT of people off. going back to your base and talking with your buddies, doing companion quests for companions you might not normally take etc, this was part of the FUN of baldur's gate.

I meant to add this point, but forgot. Thank you! I will add it in an edit. I also agree, this is a much more story heavy game than DOS2 is. I also do love the camp feature, and it seems like such a waste, to limit camps to a select 3, and random followers, when we could easily have the whole cast.

Don't think it's changing unfortunately.

They had a chance already when they were first designing this game and they had this in OS2. They seem to want to stick to a crappy (imo) design decision.

Ah yes do this and give more fodder for the This Ain't BG crowds mudslinging.

In all honesty (not beat the game or know why the lock happens. Don't want to know.) If it is just a mechanic to force you into a party choice then don't lock. But and it's a big butt, really big butt, if it is that it's locking out good/evil companions per the players choice. Them having followed a particular path showing their Scummy McScumbug, or Good Goldy two shoes, then by all means lock the party, it's a consequence of the choices you as the player made. Indeed even if it is based purely on the choices you as the player make then lock it. If you piss off Shadowheart and she leaves, or Le'eazel, or Gale or Whirly whoo hooo, who ever then keep the lock.

Sum it up. Don't put mechanics in any rpg game that doesn't have a purpose other then the fact you can. The whole we can do this because naaa naaa booo booo we're the devs, and you can't stop me isn't an arguement. Yet if especially with this one it makes sense, based on players actions then please put it in there.

ramble: Adding things in games that really add something like 'Us" then later removing them simply disappoints people. Have a reason for things, let players find out about them. Yes I am obsessed with Us, I enjoyed his quirky voice. It was light hearted, and humorous imo, plus he added a bit of lore to the game. Plus he was so squiiiiishy, and tentacly. Other games have 'Chosen' animal pets, blah blah blah, Ya'll had a baby intellect devourer!! that was crying for his mommy, and mommy came and you took him away from her!!!

sum it up. Add or keep mechanics that make sense. Keep Us reunite us!!

I could have sworn that in the "From Hell" event Swen said that if you do the right things, you'd be able to get Us as a camp follower. Maybe they just haven't finished that implementation, or intentionally left it out of EA?
Or maybe my memory is going or they changed their minds...

.not sure cause I haven't beaten the game, been trying out all sorts of things.

Have they said they will lock the party? I got no real indication or feeling that it was the case when I finished the EA. But it does seem like you can't have all the characters with you if you make certain choices.
Pretty sure Wyll will not take kindly to you joining the Goblins, and Astarion get's very crabby if you get angry at him for being a vampire.

All in all it doesn't seem to me that the way the game is set up is going to force a locked party, in fact it seems like the opposite. If they force the party, they cannot have party members leave the party, or else you are stuck with just 3 members.

I just watched this the other day and he said that they stopped short of making it a companion. It went from interactive object to possible encounter to temporary follower.

Yeah, I was actually pretty sure they wouldnt lock It, since you got so many camp followers already, why not have the companions you are not using when leaving act one follow too, don't know if I missed some conversation on game or Interview, but I got no indication this would happen at all

Same here, in game I have not experienced anything that indicates that the party is locked, was something said about it interviews or something? It would be a pity, and needs to be made very clear if/when/how it happens to not accidently lock people into a party that they don't consider their main party.

It was mentioned in Community Update 7 in the q&a portion. Quote below. I am perfectly okay with companions leaving in result of choices. I think that is fine, and pretty cool.
"Will companions be interchangeable during long rest?
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."

Edit: To me, the quote seems to imply that after act 1, companions become no longer interchangeable. Which would be a shame. I like companions leaving if they don't like you, but not having your party locked.

Hm, "after the 1st act" is not the same as "at the end of the 1st act".

It may mean that sometime during Act 2 we reach a point where cannot save all the companions.

As already pointed out, the end of Act 1 does not imply companions are left behind, the druid specifically says he is coming with you, and he is in the camp.

That could be. To me, it implied you can no longer swap companions out after act 1. I think we definitely need a bit more clarity on this subject. Also, is the druid a companion, or just a follower? Cause there is a difference.

If they are only locking certain (not all but 3) companions based on a choice/choices you make in act1/2, then that is perfectly fine. I agree that we could really use some clarification on this.

I support this message.

The druid is a follower, but if he can follow you through to act 2 from camp it implies there is no plot reason why companions who are also in camp cannot follow you the same way. I'm pretty sure "committing" to a companion means a whole lot more than simply having them in your party when you finish the first act.

I actually find the whole concept of comapnions waiting around a camp whilst you swan off rather odd anyway. It already grates in Act 1 when you tell Lae'zel (who is intent in fining a creche) to sit and wait in camp, why would she? She has been ultra bossy and commited since moment 1 and now she just does as told? It's narratively odd. At least the dialogue (or narration) should make it clearer why.

If the narrator made it clear that her thoughts were to begrudgingly accept because she realised alone she doesn't stand a chance, then that's fine, right now, it feels weird that these companions sit around with what they believe to be a ticking time bomb in their heads.

So from that perspective I see no reason for people to hang around, i.e. a form of commitment makes sense, be it based upon how you have "behaved" (i.e. alignment based), or out of a character's need (maybe Gael is clingy or too egotisitcal and it's take me or I leave), whatever, but I think it makes sense that not everyone would just always be there, even if it is just for the purpose of gameplay. At least up until the point in Act1 I have played to, you are not a leader, a hero, messiah character, you are a party and people will follow as long as their needs are met, but if not, they should go.

Not to say you won't cross paths again later on, in fact that to me adds more intruige to the story. How would their lives turn out if we didn't stay together?!
That's not to say I don't only want the party of 4 (or 5/6 should that increase), but if a story reason can be found for a "camp", where stragglers reside, then I am equally fine for some to hang around, I just don't want them all there.

Lastly on the CAMP, I am not that far into Act1 addmitedly, but resting whilst in a dungeon or cave and then resting, brings up the generic outdoor camp, once done I am where I left off, back in said Dungeon. I appreciate the gameplay aspect, but it breaks the immersion for me. in BG1/2 you had to leave certain locations before you rest.
I believe the game would benefit from an immersion aspect if only short rests were permitted in cave areas, for anything longer you have to go back outside (or the camp as a whole has to be moveable), then there is just the question why aren't people "in camp" at your side in a larger party.

So yes, I appreciate wanting spells back etc... but I would like a better way of handling this (short of a magical scroll of teleportation each time )

I was fine when they mentioned that you would lock your companions in after act 1, and I kind of still am, but after playing I definitely see good reasons to scrap that idea and let us keep them all at our camp. Not only is it quite obvious it'll be easy to drive them away with the wrong dialogue choices, but having those extra companions I can switch out is actually incredibly beneficial. I don't know if it's a story-driven decision to lock you into those companions or what but if it's not too late this is something that should be reconsidered.

Well so that's enough reason for additional origin characters or party members in itself. That will result in even fewer options.

I do not mind locking your party as long as there is a story reason to do this.
Does nobody trust the development team? When they said you had to commit after act 1, I assumed this is due to something big happening.
That said, I would strongly be against locking the party just for the sake of it.

+1 - some possible ea spoilers and sorry for the rambling

having your available origin companions 'lock' after a certain point in of itself i dont necessarily think is a bad thing, i just dont think the way larian is planning on implementing it is the best approach ie. locking in the party at the end of Act 1

(as an aside - i also dont think im a fan of 'act maps' - i would like being able to travel back to the druid grove or ruins after i have progressed the story a bit if i missed somethings initially, in the og bg among the seven chapters you could explore the world as you wanted [solo, or with any number of party slots filled, including 4/6 or 6/6] with some time sensitive plot points true, but overall you could make and take the story at your own pace, further cementing it as a story about your pc. having act maps seems just another odd system design limiting character choice and agency - unless there is a strong story/plot element, which frankly, im not really getting with the ea play so far as (spoilers) it seems you either decimate the druids or goblins and go from there but i may be mistaken. while i think the tadpole plot is a interesting dynamic to explore, i dont necessarily feel all that special if all my recruitable act 1 companions and multiple other npcs also have the tadpoles and makes me see the pc currently just as just another guy. furthermore, and maybe i may just not have run into this yet in ea, but if we are so concerned about this tadpole eating our brain why are we able to cheese long rests?...just some tangential rambling)

if they still want to lock the companions i actually think larian would be better served implementing a party lock later on during the story as the first act seems too soon in the narrative in that we wont be able to really explore these origin characters larian spent so much time/resources to create to make an informed decision as to what we want our party to be like for the remaining acts, especially when it sounds like the origin stories really wont be explored until we get to BG. Personally, i think for inspiration larian should look more towards how character choice impacted the party and gameplay as it was done in ME/ME2 or some other rpgs (currently locking after Act1 feels very dos2 - hesitant to say that, bc while i enjoyed dos2 i felt that feature was one of the weaker points).

idk if this is taboo to talk about, but specifically for ME/ME2, you were given the chance to learn and work more with your companions (while also recruiting a good number of them over the course of the whole game) to build that rapport that would give more weight/impact to tough decisions you made more towards the ends of the game. also, i think its just another odd game decision to lock your origin companions so early when larian expounds on how much effort/resources are put into creating these characters only for us to essentially lock us out part of the story early on - idk, seems like not the best use of resources, but thats just my interpretation. and while i understand some ppl may say its for replayability, i just dont see that connection as you could still choose to hold off on any origin character content you didnt want to experience until future playthroughs with out mandating that players have to essentially opt out of certain gameplay. and frankly if i want to do another playthrough id say is more bc i want to fire up a new player character and that trying new origin companion content should just be supplemental to a new player character play through at that point, but i also think that the concept of an origin character in of itself doesnt really mesh well with a bg game where the player created character is supposed to shine as the star. to add to that, i dont necessarily feel all that connected to these origin characters when they just sit back and let a mind flayer eat my brain, but thats another topical discussion (and for those of you who say that you didnt have a pc in ME you had shep, while true, it was also your own shep whose backstory, gender, look, and decisions you decided on during the game. added benefit that shep had their own VO also makes me wish this was a feature implemented in bg3 - kinda a let down to almost never hear the pc's actually voice selection during dialogue)

tbh, the more i play the more i scratch my head on how the systems in this bg game seem to limit player agency/choice more than give us options (ie limiting the party after act1/no optional party size, limitations in character creation options - ex. full customization options regardless & y no alignment? [unless your a cleric?? and i cant be an evil elven cleric of the archeart that pulls some Altmer elder scrolls inspiration?], no current choice to roll for stats or selecting standard array/point buy. optional first level feat, the option to just leave or attack for every dialogue encounter, choosing starting equipment - all these would increase player choice, and i get some of these will likely be covered by mods, but i think letting larian know there is a demand/market for such functions will only work to improve the game)

just my thoughts - thx!

Agreed with OP.

Plus Larian have not said what happens post the lock right?!
I mean for all we know, there are further companions to be picked up later on, you know, ones without the tadpole perhaps? Could be that locking in the Act 1 characters are all about who survive and who go on to errr a different path!!

As always, we are just speculating on little information, that's ok, but we shouldn't get too wrapped up in either direction, i.e. no need to get too upset or overly fanciful, because right now we only have a snippet of info.

Very well put, OP. Those are most of the reasons why I think it's a terrible decision. Fully agree.

Totally agree with all of your points. I want to address few things in this thread. Some major spoilers for Divinity: Original Sin 2 and surprisingly for Mass Effect 2:

Arbitrarily locking your party Vs party members leaving because of your choices - the later is more than ok, it makes sense. If you did something that a certain party member was against so much he doesn't want to keep traveling with you, it's fine. It makes the party members more believable as characters and emphasize their personalities. And it is a real consequence, it is a direct result of your choices. But when you arbitrarily remove all but three of your companions there is no real choice or way to remedy it. You strip choice from the player, make the companions a stupid NPC's that has no control over their fate and break immersion.

Someone mentioned me2 and I think me2 is a GOOD example of how to do companions deaths. First of all it happens in the end of the game, and secondly it is based on your choices during the game and in the final mission.

Divinity Original Sin 2 and why I really don't trust Larian in this aspect of game design. I wrote about it briefly here on the forum but it deserves a more organized summary: divinity Original Sin 2 handling of companions was the worst I ever seen in an RPG video game, and it looks like the companions design actively sabotaged the narrative.
At the end of act 2, right before you enter the temple to fight over who ascend to divinity, you have to talk with all of your companions since all of them are potential rivals in this fight. If you treated them well throughout the game, they will side with you, but if you ignored them and didn't do their quests they will fight you for Divinity. Sounds awesome right? It is, except 3 of your potential companions died much earlier in the game in a very silly and senseless way. But Larian wanted to eat the cake and leave it whole, so they made the three dead companions into zombies and made them fight you anyway. This decision is one of the most stupid decisions I have ever seen in a narrative driven video game. I can't think of any explanation for aside from "Larian wanted you to commit" and I'm pretty sure this decision was done without involving the writing stuff until later into development. The only other possible explanation is that initially the companions were supposed to continue with until the end of act 2 but they changed it at the last moment. Otherwise I can't explain this terrible writing.

This is my problem with their insistence on "committing" to a party. They did it so poorly in dos2 that I have no reason to believe they will do it right this time. Just stupid

Agreed with OP. I don't want to lose their stories because I have to choose based on their class.

I agree with the OP. A locked party would be the kiss of death for an RPG series that has always been about experimentation and choice.

Is locking the party an actual thing? That would be lame.

It has been heavily hinted. the developers said that by the end of act 1 you "would have to commit" like its some kind of magic excues for stupid game design.

Again, speculation runs both ways.

It could "JUST" lock down which of the starting companions you keep and which ones you don't, but I seriously doubt that at the end of Act1 there will be an arbitrary lock which means no other potential companions worth meeting in the later acts!
Sorry, that seems far fetched.

Companions die, your decisions might cause current companions to leave... I do not see us being "stuck" with our choice of 3 companions for the rest of the game.

I could be wrong, but until more info / or the game itself comes out, we both simply don't know.

Personally, I enjoy doing as many of the companion's stories as I can, so I go back throughout the game and take different party members to see their stories and play through everything possible.

I prey to god I'm wrong but based on what happened in DOS2 I really think this is the direction. The good news is this was remedied in DOS2 with mods so it might be possible here as well.

I think it depends on how it's written. If it's just like "oh well we're going somewhere and you guys can't come," that'd be bad. If it's some well written dilemma that involves real choice, I think I'll be okay with it.

I wrote about it above but in short - don't hold your breath.

The characters who approve our actions the least could decide to go their own ways. This could be a problem for chaotic characters gathering approval randomly.

But why though?

It is Larians decisions. I was merely trying to think of a somewhat plausible explanation. Something that is a bit better than "Half of your group went missing for some reason. Now continue, nothing to see here"
Lae'zel would grow impatient at some time if she is not part of the group often. If Larian absolutely wants to fix the group at 4 after act1, there should be some party interaction to explain it.

Yeah like there was in dos2. Wait....

I guess the whole premise of this thread is to make Larian realize that the DOS2 solution was not all that great

It was great in theory for the purpose of that specific game. Someone in the forum defined companions dynamics in dos2 as Highlander style - you are a party but you are also rivals for one prize. So it made sense to lose some party members. The problem was the awful terrible execution.

But in Baldur's Gate 3's case, there is no justification for it other than "we did it in dos2"