Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Party Locking... dont

All of the points here are great, i'm on the "pls don't team" but i think there are ways this might partially work.
First of all, we do not know for sure how long Act 1 will be, will the scuffle at the towers be a beginning of Act 2, or the finale of Act 1 (which i hope for). In either case, i think it would be great, that after the tadpoles are removed, you get to keep the people that have high opinion of you, and the ones that you didn't got along with just go their way (Like, Shadowheart goes on with her quest, Astarion goes to Baldur's Gate and so on). It wouldn't be too OP since every decision comes with someone liking it and someone that do not. So there won't be a possibility to keep all of the people - someone will surely go away. I really hope they won't force us to chose by ourselves at the end of the act/story arc, because it doesn't make sense for DnD. In DOS:2 you could basically just scratch the character's skills and start all over, depending on your needs. In DnD it's not possible, so cutting us off so abruptly wouldn't be nice.

As said earlier in the thread... all of the origin characters are inherently selfish individuals to some degree. This said, once the tadpole issue is "resolved" there is ZERO reason to continue on with them. I don't feel emotional attachment to any of these origin characters after putting in over 300 hours playing this EA. I don't like there personalities, or the quirks, and would just as soon let them all die. The only reason to stay with them is the common thread of the tadpole, and after that, I would be spending my time solo, or picking up a new set of companions. So locking unwanted companions in at the end of ACT one is illogical at best from my perspective. And that action of forcing the player into a narrow combination of companionship would make this game very linear and likely make it less enjoyable to play. I also realize the Developers cannot produce an unlimited number of "add on" characters either. But some other options would be welcome, and a complete change of the guard (companions) at Act 2 might also be welcome to some. I just want more options. Don't throw me in a trench with no way out (figuratively).

I think I made my opinion very clear in other threads. Party Locking would not be good for this game in any way. It would be bad for the plot, how the player feels playing, and for the mechanics.

I would like to chip in and say I am also on the please don't do party locking bandwagon.

I would also like to suggest that IF Larian listens and does this, then I would also like to see two things added: have camp inventory unlocked, so we can cycle through all of the characters' inventories and not just the ones who are in our active party; and add an actual party management feature similar to the one in the original saga. This would resolve not being able to recruit new characters into your party immediately when you're already at 4. It would also consolidate the current two-step process of first talking to the person you want to drop and then talking to the character you want to bring along into the one-step process of simply talking to the character you want to bring along.

Some people just don't get along. Like Lae'zel and Shadowheart.

The party is forced to work together because of the tadpole, if it's gone it's the same as your high school classmates. Once high school is over, did you keep in contact with everyone you chilled in class with? Or only the ones you actually had friendship with?

I hope any party locking won't be as dire as Divinity: Original Sin 2. But having to choose between Shadowheart or Lae'zel is pretty cool.
Astarion and Lar'zel seem the most evil aligned, Shadowheart, Gale, and Wyll all seem neutral.

Right now it's looking like half the party versus the other half (pure speculation). Which isn't too bad considering Karlach is another character. So hopefully it will be group of 3 (A) or group of 3 (B), which is a lot more interesting than what happened in Divinity: Original Sin 2.

Has there been a categoric "Party Locking means no changing/finding new companions post Act1"?

Or is everyone jumping on this because Larian have previous in DOS2 and stated they want you to choose out of the initial companions which ones to go forward with?

Past experience with DOS2 and relative silence on the subject makes it seem like a tangible possibility.

Right now the argument basically revolves around whether the possibility of party locking is either going to be due to a willing player choice, or only ultimately enforced due to an arbitrary party headcount limit in the end. Considering how badly D:OS2 pulled it off so that it was squarely in the latter camp, people are right to fear that the possibility of it happening in BG3 will be along the lines of the latter once more.

I'm still missing the more down to earth companions like Eder, Ajantis, Branwen, Kivan, Keldorn, Jaheira, Valygar, Jan or many others from BG1 and 2.

I don't feel right forming a party where everyone is an alien, vampire, werewolf or has crazy over the top secrets if they are "only human". I want one of these characters so outlandish doesn't become the norm and the normal characters act as anchors to a believable FR setting. BG2 understood this and not everyone was an Avariel.

It also seems like you have a choice between an alien or devil for your party warrior and they're also both female. For such a basic role I would want to have an option for something more ordinary. Wasn't Eder by far the most popular companion in Pillars of Eternity, where you also have godlikes with flaming heads and such.

Good writing is much more important than creative or fantastical characters. If you have too many "special" characters it just becomes a weird menagerie where they compete who's the most creative and undermine the story.

In Community Update 7, Larian said"After the first act you are going to have to commit" combined with how DOS2 worked implies that the companions you don't choose will be killed or otherwise turned into antagonists.

Larian does take the stance that the origin characters are all main characters in their own right. That being said I would appreciate some down-to-earth party members as well.

To be honest, much as I love Shadowheart, I kinda wish they'd decided to make the origin characters options you could play through but which you wouldn't encounter as possible companions. Let them be full on main characters.

I think the locking down the party size to 4 and possibly killing off(or worse) those origin characters that don't make it in the party after act 1, as was done in DOS2, is a bad way to up the replay value by forcing players to choose what companion related narratives they can experience in a single playthrough.

In DOS2 it didn't work as a motivation to replay the game for me, since I never cared that much about the prospective companions I left out(the lizard and the skeleton were both massive toff douches, so no big regrets to abandoning them).

In BG3, I'd be interested in keeping all the companions around, even if they're rather tiresome bunch at times. Still, if the active party size is locked to just 4, then you'll be missing out on much of their storylines even if they're just lurking around at the campsite. Nor do their comments about the gameplay events make that much sense, since they're nowhere to be seen during the events they later comment on as if they were present.

However, I'm not at all sure if BG3 is actually interesting enough to complete twice, since the big narrative branching choice of the first act seems to be a rather humorless choice on whether or not to join a suicide cult or not. This forced choice, between pretty much every conceivable motivation ranging from good to self-serving pragmatism and plain dumb self-harming shambling, is annoyingly familiar: it's like the choice between aligning with the Shadow thieves and Bodhi's organization in BG2, and the choice between opposing or allying with the voidwoken in DOS2.

Ditto.

Party locking is a bad idea. However, I have no problem with the death,etc of the act 1 companions if if fits the storyline and that other non origin characters can be recruited. Not just mercenaries, but fully fleshed out characters….

Party members leaving because of your choices, that is fine... or even because of there choices (heroic sacrifices are cool for example

Having a "dramatic plot twist" where "all your party dies or becomes mind flayers" and you are stuck with three part members... thats not good

Agreed

You can't have 4 main characters together at the same time. It's like a textbook example of a paradox. Maybe that's the mistake here then.

That said, the cast could work IF we got at least two down to earth ordinary hero or anti-hero characters for companions. With great stories and personalities of course, just nothing as extravagant and incredible as we've already seen. Something more relatable.

Gale's story didn't have to be so far out either. His condition could have been caused by anything magic related and it didn't have to involve gods and planes.

Well, it's more that we've been asking clarifications about that statement since the EA started and we never really got one.
So yeah, a lot of people are defaulting to DOS 2 as reference since it matches to T what they are describing here.

Larian Confirmed it in Community Update #7. It's what mrfuju3 quoted.