Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Really disliking the plan for companion locks

As the title says, I'm [/i]really[i] hating the plan that Larian has right now for companion lockdown after act 1. It really just kills part dynamics if not every one of the companions can interact, or so I think. I also hate commitment. I'd be cool if party members for natural reasons, but if they just bolted after Act 1 like is now the plan, that would be absolutely garbage. I like large and diverse casts of characters, not just three of them per playthrough! Please reconsider, Larian!

I prefer getting locked in so i can methodically play different party compositions with different playthroughs with out feeling like i need to constantly swap characters out for content mid run or i might miss something im intended to see. It is unenjoyable to be uneasy at all times about whether i need to have certain companions in certain situations, and when the game is designed around the idea of locked parties i then can trust the developers have accounted for any party combination in any situation. Likewise, the 'freedom' to shuffle your party is not really giving you more, its actually taking from you, as certain situations might very obviously favor certain party members, causing you to take them naturally, and thus missing out on the content that the off-members might have for that situation.

Some might claim that a solution to this would be to enforce strict party composition yourself, but its not so easy, since a game not designed around strict party has no player assurance that they are not supposed to be shuffling things around as i have mentioned.

What does locked in even mean? I'd imagine we can still kill them off. Just no new companions? Or the party is locked down?

It would make sense that companions you can recruit in act 1 but dont go off on their own thing so you cant recruit. Otherwise I dunno. We'll see I suppose.

usually heroes are taken to get quests and open locations . and then they leave them in the camp. I killed one hero when she was in a cage. The others were stupidly thrown into the camp.

I mean that after act 1, you choose 3 companions who you like best to go with you, and the rest are lost to the sands of time. It's kind of bull, imo.

I recently replayed BG 1 before the EA release of BG 3.

I could change my party right up to the last boss fight- no problem.

Also had 6 (Me + 5) dynamic members that felt unique and interesting.

I didn't feel like I "missed out on some parts of the story" because there were many more companions I didn't bring along.

I didn't feel overwhelmed by the need to control and level up 6 total party members.

I felt like I had the freedom to create a really unique party built from really unique characters, and could opt to swap one out if one of mine dislikes my decisions or dies in combat.

I felt like the main character.

---
Party locking at end of Act 1:

Sure- let Astarion leave and be inaccessible if you don't pick him up in Act 1 or early into Act 2.

Sure!

These things are honestly perfectly okay design choices- IF AND ONLY IF there are a slew of other companions to meet and align with along the way. When I first met I loved him. I immediately had a sad feeling inside thinking that Larian won't end up allowing many companions because they're shooting for such a high bar for the companion's dialog options. won't make the cut, and neither will most NPCs.



It's EA, I know- but the decisions I've seen so far have me worried for the integrity of party dynamics. There is so much- SO MUCH time being spent on the origin characters and I can only assume they're going to put even more time into developing the story branches for the origin characters in the later acts. If there is a party lock at the end of Act 1- that is a very clear confirmation that we won't have any new companions after Act 1. Why would we? Our party would be locked.

I'm sure the occasional temporary party member will be added for a quest element or something- but that's just simply not the same- period.

TLDR;
Limiting to 4 members - especially when locking at the end of Act 1 - is not a good feeling.

What I want:
I want 6 members- I want an unlocked party- I want diverse options for companions throughout the entire game.

The problem with unlocked companions is that it limits the writing of companions in a way. I remember when for example in dragon age inquisition you would have situations like finding some grey warden buildings and the game would say "Blackwall would like to see this". Imagine that for example you find some Shar cultists during the main quest, so Shadowheart could be there or not, but how could the writers manage that in the character progression sense? That encounter could be a really important moment that permits a better understanding of her inner self or that changes her views/personality or something like that. It would be more limiting to write a character story that could be seen during the main quest or not. Another example, you could have a character that you thought that was good starting to torture someone to get something dear to him or her during a quest, that is a really important characterization, don't you agree?

About the 4/6 party dilemma, the problem is that they would need to have bigger battles with more enemies to compensate, and people are complaining a lot about the duration of the fights already.

The battles would go much faster if the AI didn't like to take upwards of a minute deciding to actually do nothing. If they fix that alone things will be much better.

As for the 'origin' characters. I'm not that big of a fan, honestly. I don't want to play their characters and their stories. I want to make my own character with the story I create for him throughout the game through my actions/choices. I wish they would spend less time making a special storyline for all of 'their' characters and just make the story for your character, and by extension the entire party, bigger and better. As others have noted having every character in the party with this huge secret story is kind of too much. Isn't it enough that you're a bunch of hapless suckers who were all trapped together?

I would take tougher opponents but more party members. I hate to leave one of them behind.

At least let them stay at our camp!

Ideally (to me), potential companions that are not invited to join the party to begin with or that are dismissed at some point in favor of other companions, continue to find a path to salvation on their own, possibly aided by other non-invited or dismissed party members that align with their personality, crossing paths with the player every now and then.

Players changing their mind about those non-invited/dismissed companions, who wish to later reintroduce those companions, would need to overcome the disapproval rating of those companions (Oh, you thought you could do without me, huh? Treating me like a pet that can be discarded at a whim.) by completing one or more tasks for that companion.

I'd be especially excited if there's a disapproval threshold that could be reached that causes the companion to not only become truly locked out from being a potential ally, but to actively become an enemy that opposes the player.

This may my recent Crusader Kings 3 playing time talking, where your vassals have an approval/disapproval rating that you need to manage, and where those vassals can start rebellions against you if the disapproval is too high for too long.

I do. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I agree that I would like a larger party size. Regarding locked companions after Act I... I feel like we really can't say whether this is bad or not until we have a sense for what's planned. It could result in something really interesting and perhaps tighter storytelling which I would ultimately prefer to having access to all companions. In all likelihood, you're probably right and it will be overly limiting. But, I'm personally too curious about what it might mean for the story to pass judgement just yet.

If it's arbitrary that's bs though.

It's easier for them so they can just copy paste from D:OS again. Same issue with the party limit.

I gues IF in the end of Act one we get rid of tadpoles ... then many companions will no longer have reason to travel with us. :-/
It seem reasonable.

Also i dont mind really, since i dont change my party once its done anyway.
It would be nice to have them in camp ... but maybe i would like much more to see they go live their lives, and maybe meet them later somewhere else ... than just stand by fire, and watch it burn. :-/

I really like this. It would give them even more depth if you play through the game multiple times. If they are unaffected by the PC and the other party members, what path will they choose and what personality will they stick to or develop.

If you end up in the vampire lair in BG, maybe you will face Asterion there as an opponent or with an option to help him out. Maybe Asterion didn't make it because you dismissed him straight off the bat, or maybe he did because you completed parts of his personal quest and outfitted him accordingly. If you have to choose your a final party at the end of act one, of course party member you have a good relationship with will be disappointed if not picked. Other party members may outright refuse to join you depending on which route you take and whether you neglected them or not. It doesn't fit well in the current narrative and fellowship based on desperation, but it would definitely give us a good chunk of RPGness that would take the gae to a different level.

Have they really confirmed this, even though additional characters can just hang out in camp with you? I mean, Halsin and Volo do this already...

There was a topic about it already, but it's an important issue so can't have too many of these. In short - I agree and think it's a cheap and lame idea that was not only pointless in dos2 but actually hurt the narrative

Like I said, if there's organic reasons for party members to leave (Like how Minsc leaves if you don't help Dynaheir in BG1) I'm totally cool with that.

Yea, but it not only was organic and kinda up to the player, you also had many other companion options to replace the leaving characters with...

This is not exactly on topic but i'm seriously worried about the companions in this game. It seems like they are being treated like in Divinity, far from what the original games did. The ones we got are all evil more or less, they're not likeable for me and i don't want them in my party. In the older games (and many other rpgs) you have freedom of choice, so they need to add more recruitable companions from the beginning or throughout chapter 1. My neutral good character won't have anything to share with the cast of companions we got.

The fact that they're calling them "origin characters" also really worries me. I don't want to play as them, i want to play as me, i want my character to feel important like in the first games and every other rpg. Since voice acting requires a lot work and resources is there even a plan to add more companions i wonder?