Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Permanent party after Act 1

Greetings all. I was reading through the EA FAQ again and I noticed the last question from Jess from Larian.



I'm not sure how everyone else feels about this or even noticed it. Things move at a breakneck speed in these forums. I'm not sure I like this. At all. Now this is all baseless speculation at this point, so I don't want to be overly negative.

In DoS2, whichever 2 Origin members you didn't select to join your party became entirely unusable after a certain point. For the story of that game, it works. You're working with a very small party and each member is trying to attain godhood for their own particular reasons. It's a "shared" goal, but there can only be one. So it makes sense you might have to kill some people along the way (if that's how you play your version of the story out)

In BGIII, everyone is working towards the same goal. Get that tadpole out of your heads. They also have their own goals and motivations. But in BGI/II it was very much the same. Even though there was no camp per se, you could release a party member at any particular point and recruit someone else to see their story. A play through could be as long or as short as you wanted, depending on how many companions stories you got involved with.

Based on the wording from Larian, it leads me to believe that anyone who isn't with you at the end of Act 1 is going to die or otherwise become unavailable. We're then "forced" to complete the rest of the game with one party. Who knows. Maybe at the end of Act 1, you get some kind of delay for the tadpole removal in the Towers. Any members not with you will turn into Illithid. Yes, that's a very big assumption on my end. It's just a guess.

It also leads me to believe that there will not be all that many companions (if any) after Act 1. In BGI/II you met people everywhere. Meeting everyone in the same Act seems a bit too convenient.

If that happens, our ability to diversify our party based on needs will go out the window. Paired with the fact there are only 4 party members. I'm not saying you need 6, but 5 would be a nice happy median. You have that extra utility slot. But this post isn't about that. My concern is that it will get very stale dealing with the same party for another 60-80 hours, versus being able to keep things fresh with adding and removing party members at will.

For all I know though, this will fit in with the story they are weaving. I could also be entirely off base though. I just figured it would be worth bringing up. At the end of the day this is their game they are crafting and not ours and I 100% respect that, but some of that BG feel goes out the window if we have a set party locked. You can't please everyone. I'm happy either way in knowing I'll more than likely be getting a great game.

I agree that it would be nice to be able to meet more allies in the later acts of the game, rather than just at the beginning.
I like the idea of having a member of the group having just NO IDEA we have a tadpole in our head (Volo is kind of that guy, but I don't think he's meant to become a companion per se).
I wonder if the druid Halsin is meant to become a companion later on, or if he's supposed to be one as soon as act one but the gameplay for druids isn't ready yet so they didn't make him fully playable.

Anyway, my point is: companions are exciting, even more so than a new, powerful piece of gear for a slot you have never been able to fill up to that point. And I think getting a full party as soon as act one is a bit premature. It's always a nice surprise, it's exciting to feel like the game as more in store for you.

I've read in various places that the party will be set at the end of Act I. I would prefer at least one more permanent party member if that's the case. But regardless, not being able to take everyone along at will adds replay value, at least for me. I expect I'll run more than one character through and possibly play one or more of the origins. Each time, I'll pick my optimal party based on my own PC's strengths and weaknesses. If you only expect to play this game one time, then I can see why you'd feel limited by suddenly having access to all the options removed. I personally don't have a problem with it.

I really hope we can pick up new companions along the way. It seems only natural that we'll meet someone different in each chapter, rather than magically finding a myriad of various characters who happens to be in this particular corner of the world - and then never again anyone willing to travel with us.

It was also one of the things in BG1+2 that made the world feel somewhat alive. It was not just a collection of fights, it was people everywhere who could join us, fight us, or just wanted a dimwit to go steal a bird for them.

depends on how much they want to brake the DnD rules. There are only certain combinations you can make in a party that you absolutely need. If you are a warrior no toad girl. if you play a cleric no shadow heart. you are a mage? bye gale and wyll.
You dont have a choice or much choice at all in the game to begin with. bad choice, better to have the option to send them to inn or tell them to head to Baldurs Gate on there own once you clear a path. Maybe make it a chance that they make to it to baldurs gate depending if you give them any gear and money for there travel. Good gear and money chances are they make it, no gear no money most likely they die.

Oh it definitely adds replayability for sure. I always enjoy that in a game. But if it's corralled into one area of the game, that's not all that fun to me. Imagine playing through Act 1 repeatedly just to get to Act 2 with your different party members. Granted you could just make a separate save right before the end of Act 1.

At the start of ToB, you can summon all your various allies at a camp of sorts. At the end of ToB, you still find out what happened to all your members. It was a nice little bookend. If I never see my companions again after act 1, it would be disappointing. Again, that's a lot of speculation on my end, who knows where things will go.

Hey yall, my first fourm post. I would just like to say that based on some of the story I do believe we will find more friends as we venture forth!

*****SPOILER AHEAD SPOILER AHEAD SPOILER AHEAD*****

Two instances I can think of
1. You save the Devil Girl she says you can find her later on somewhere...I don't recall exactly where she said you can find her.
2. If you manage to save the couple of archer dudes that are getting wrecked by the wolf apocalypse then they give you a secret message on a place you can go to meet them later.

Based on those two scenarios alone if everyone dies. Then I'm almost positive we will have access to more friends in the future should our current ones die.

I want to find all companions in Act 1, but then have them all around and available for the entire game. I dislike the idea of companions vanishing.

Agree, i hope we get the chance to switch companions at any point and find new ones in later acts.

People that have datamined the game have found companion strings for 8 more characters.

It would be a very poor decision to limit new companions to just the first act.

In fact in real life, nobody has to commit to companions, and you always meet new people later in life. You don't have to commit to anything actually.

That reasoning seems very weak, and makes it seem as though the people that are making this game have never once in their whole lives stepped outside of their mother's basements.

Firesnakearies,

I have one solution for this and one additional statement to follow. So instead of vanashing perhaps Larian could look into adding a bonus fight at your camp the next time you go back to it after finishing act 1, which is where you left them RP wise, and when you go back they all the ones not in your party just so happened to turn into mindflayers. Would this make it feel better than them just vanishing.

My statement would be how often are we actually making party changes. I know for me once i have a group together I really don't bother to make changes unless the story dictates such as needing Gythraki (however its spelled) lady to talk to Zorru(or whatever his name is). Maybe this is just me and if that is the case i completely understand where your coming from as to why it would be such a big game changer for them to just vanish.

Well that would certainly be interesting story-wise, but I would still feel disappointed.

What I think may happen is that you gotta commit to the tadpole companions? Maybe you gotta choose who is gonna get saved and then maybe we'll meet more companions that don't have tadpoles? Like we save Shadowheart and might meet some people under shar or selune. Who knows. I like the companions so far but we are lacking in what Dos2 had with interesting side characters that stick around (The halfdemon-elf, the necromancer, the kid who looks for stuff,) Then again this is only the first act and we don't know who is actually gonna stick around with us. Who knows.

Yeah, I've been wondering at how the whole "commit to party by end of Act I" fits together with the fact that we probably only have at most half of the total companions available now. I mean they could probably fit a couple more into the EA area without crowding it too much, and I suppose the rest would have to be added on the next leg of the main quest since that seems like it's the end of Act I.

As for the real life thing, I assumed they meant in a roleplaying group because otherwise yes, you're quite right, that's not how it works at all

I'm working under the assumption that we have met all five of the Origins characters, but there are still several more companions that we can recruit in later chapters, who lack the Mindflayer Tadpole Background.

I don't think there is any decent reason to kill companion after act1. Why should we commit to a definitive party? isn't that just an arbitrary limitation?

I'm okay with the idea of committing to the party after Act 1, although it's going to be interesting to see how Larian manages to cram all the companions into that one act without it seeming forced. There are several reasons why I think it will work well:

I just finished Wasteland 3 which adds new companion choices all the way through the game, even up to around 75% of the game being finished. By that halfway point, I've already settled into combat strategies for my companions and it's hard to integrate a new one as a replacement. Especially if they're auto-leveled to match the current party, which may be a mix of skills and attributes you wouldn't choose for them.

Again using Wasteland 3 as an example, and other games work like this too -- you sometimes get a side-quest as you move through the game that's designed around one of the companions. You ideally want that one in your party to get the full dialog and best outcome. This can mean re-hiring one you've dismissed just for that quest, then dismissing them again afterwards.

This feels incredibly "gamey." If we have to commit to the party at the end of Act 1, Larian can just block off all the quests for companions you're not using. We'll never see those awkward notices about "be sure to have Companion XXX in your party" when receiving a new quest notice. Any companion quests will be smoothly integrated for just your current party.

So I'm not against the idea, I'm just wondering if Act 1 is large enough to allow trying out all the companions so we can make a decision at the end. Of course it's easier if you go into the game with a fixed idea of the kind of party you want, like a classic D&D holy trinity or whatever. That makes it easier to decide.

Well, Shadowheart and Lae'zel could finally come to blows or have an argument and decide you have to choose between the two of them (Seriously, it's a pain just to get Shadowheart in the party oif Lae'zel's already there), and then Gale could stick with Shadowheart (Considering he started hitting on her in your first conversation) and Wyll could stick with Lae'zel on the basis of their idle dialogue - Wyll's the one person I've seen at least get some positive reaction from her while he was flirting with her. Choosing your companions doesn't have to be all doom and gloom!

I agree with the fact of having to commit to a party would be pretty lame. I also agree with there being no real reason for companions to die at the END of Act 1; however, I do feel like the tadpoles need to feel like more of a big deal in the game as of right now they just kinda feel like they are there and have no real purpose other than to give you special powers. To make them feel more threatening they should turn one of your companions and I feel like the end of Act 1 is the best time for it to do so. If this isn't the case perhaps if we do actually get them removed(idk if this happens yet, idc if you spoil it doesn't matter I am going find out sometime anyway) someone dies during the operation.

People dying triggers an emotional effect on people whether it being anger and forcing pursuit for vengeance for that person or sadness that you lost a friend, either way its good for story progression. I think this should be something the DM(Larian in this case) has control over and not us. We just are not allowed to lose character created people and only being able to lose companions. I do not have a great solution and of course we are all spit-balling opinions so this is mine.

I am totally fine with the fixed party after Act 1. So many RPGs that I have played have my character be the chosen one, a person with some authority and the companions are more or less under my command. But that's not like that here...