Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Do not make us choose between companions at the end of act 1 (DoS II spoilers inside)

Even in its Early Access status, BG3 is already chock full of content. It is already abundantly clear that replayability will never be an issue, so I think there is very little reason to cut us off from all but 4 companions (or worse, 3, if we do not choose an origin character, and their stat block is not ideal… especially Shadowheart’s).

DOS II did something similar, but they had only 6 playable characters to begin with, and there is reason to suspect BG3 will have more. We are already at 5 official companions.

I know Larian seems quite deadset on making us choose, but I hope they will reconsider.

Given the Camp, I'd prefer to just be able to recruit as many as we want/can.

I doubt that.
There seems to be a good amount of content, but I don't think there really is.
It's not limited to Baldur's Gate III (it's actually very common), but illusion of choice is very widespread in Baldur's Gate III.

For every quest there's basically two results: good and evil.
Though there are two results, evil blocks content more than it leads to content, and what content it does lead to is very short.

I guess it makes sense to focus on good more than evil since many players might not even choose evil choices (maybe they've seen data supporting that while gathering information from how people play their games).
However, given the linearity so far from Baldur's Gate III (and apparently from Original Sin II), I doubt that there will be enough content to make the game worth replaying more than twice.


If there isn't much content, I don't think it's very likely that they will reconsider.

I sincerely hope they get to a larger party size. 5 would be perfect imo, 6 nice but i do not see that.

Otherwise i guess the others just stay in camp/inn and you can change like you do now?!?

There is something weird about a character who hangs around at your camp but never joins in the adventure with you. Imagine if Gimli had decided to jin the fellowship of the ring, but just to never do anything but hang around at the camp. LOTR would have been much stranger

Nothing weird at all, if you have even the slightest bit of imagination (which is what an RPG is all about, right?). When I have companions hanging out at camp I don't see them just hanging out doing nothing. I see them as (a) providing security for the camp, (b) going out on patrol in the surrounding areas, (c) helping with camp chores, maintenance, and improvements, and (d) joining in the party for activities that are not explicitly being played out in the game by me the player.

Entirely agree. Weirder yet, characters outside the party discuss the events of the day as if they were active participants. I never know how to respond to that.

Because I never swap party members, I'm fine with killing off the dead weight at the end of Act I.

That's basically what Sam does to Frodo, no ? Following him around as a kind of subservient adventure-butler ... Everything alright mister Baggins ?

I do agree that in a video game it doesn't make sense, especially without any animation suggesting they do something else than meditate with that tadpole in their head.