To me, the entire story of BG3 really stinks of BG2's Bhaals essence, or at least taking heavy inspirations from that... so it's the reason why I deducted that the resolution of the tadpole problem won't come until very late.. what makes me wonder though is: if people not using the powers at all will get some recognition for their restraint in the end?
I have a feeling the tadpoles will be with us throughout the game. I just posted this text from BG3's Steam Store page on another thread for a different reason, but look closely at what they're saying here:
Mysterious abilities are awakening inside you, drawn from a Mind Flayer parasite planted in your brain. Resist, and turn darkness against itself. Or embrace corruption, and become ultimate evil.
Maybe they're talking just about Act 1 there, but it sounds like they're describing the main plot driver; whether you go to the Dark Side or the Light Side of the tadpole powers you've been given. It's not a bad plot mechanic.
Oh yes, it's one of the reasons I made now 2 characters that entirely reject the tadpole and never use it. Never. I did reload an earlier save just to see how all these dream sequences play out and how heartbreaking it is that because of the PC deciding to bypass an encounter with the tadpole mind control the entire party suffers. I get it, but I don't like it, which is why come full release I won't ever use the tadpole options. Also, I hate how there is absolutely 0 recognition in the game as of now when it comes to our restraint. 0. No dreams, nothing. In BG1/2 all the dreams varied on your reputation/alignment. I do hope Larian will rectify that. Like we don't need to get all these enticing dreams promising us power that we get if we use the tadpole, but give us SOMETHING.
It's true, the whole "dreams calling you to a promise of power" is straight out of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. YMMW but I feel like it's a decent enough callback, though I'm a bit worried that BG 3 is going to suffer a fair bit from recycling of concepts from D:OS2 as well, making it seem too much like they're just mashing old Divinity and BG bits together instead of creating something original.
Considering that you need to rest inbetween every dialogue use of the tadpole I never used it much and as such triggered the later content so late in my playthrough that I never got to use it. I think if Larian wants us to play with the tadpole powers they should remove/relax the resting requirement (or give us more reason to rest).
As for your read on what happens at Moonrise Towers, it sounds like a pretty good guess
What I don't like, and I have said/written it quite a lot of times (and I hate repeating myself) is that there needs to be more permutations of these dreams. You use the tadpole, you get a dream. You don't use the tadpole, you get no dreams, like what?! Give us dreams too, goddammit! Clearly different ones than you get when you let yourself be corrupted. But there has to be something, I understand why you get special tadpole powers and whatnot when you use the thing, those of us that reject the thing don't need any extra powers, just give us something. Anything.
As to resting triggering some extra content, you have no idea how that irritates me. BG1 had a crapload of flaws, but the fact that you got your dreams after finishing certain main story quests was a good design. I also hate how many companion cutscenes are just completely skippable or you have to go through a lot of extra hoops and effort to get them. Legit, I'm at the end of my 2nd playthough and I still have not had the Weave scene trigger with Gale, like wot m8? I feed you magic man. Imho I guess it's what EA is for, for feedback on these things (and I swear, once I'm done with this playthough I am legit gonna write a book of a feedback of things like that that need improvement asap + bugs). But basically, some of the camp cutscenes should be directly tied as to what you do and how long you hang out with certain party members. I hate the 'timed missions' and 'timed content in games' but in the case of BG3 it might be the only solution.
I think that your conversations with the Hooded Skeleton, who later turns up in camp to provide resurrection services, offer pretty heavy foreshadowing. He wants to know what value the PC places on a mortal life and if the PC says it depends on the life wonders on what basis you will choose. To me that suggests that the player will be making significant judgments, possibly concerning which companions survive, perhaps in another context (the new Jergal?)
I'm personally OK with not all companions surviving the first act, since I really dislike having unused companions sitting around waiting for me to call on them. Never knowing whether the entire camp will need to rally to an effort like the defense of Denerim, I feel like they need to be equipped, carry healing potions, and have their skills leveled, even if I'm not actively using them. Since reputation matters, I also need to chat them up. On the other hand I don't want to discover too late that I no longer have access to a needed skill set (for instance will my ranger continue to provide more or less adequate lock-picking). To me, having a bit of party turnover (as companions die, decide they don't like you, or just have agendas they want to pursue on their own once the tadpole issue is resolved), seems entirely natural. Meeting possible new companions in Baldur's Gate is something to look forward to. Being forced to group with companions your character might not normally choose after the crash is true to the situation, and I consider the first act companions to be well enough designed that having to rely on them isn't really a hardship.
Having now played a bit of the game, I still think six companions would be too many--a balancing and pathing problem--but five might be nice.
Speaking of the hooded skeleton guy, well. If you play a cleric, you can actually 'detect' that he's got a crapload of divine power oozing out of him and you can actually question him about it. Obviously, he's dodging the questions pretty well, but basically the conclusion was that he was some sort of chosen of Jergal. Also, I have not had this same line trigger on my wizard.. so it's very class specific. Also, that line of questioning him is locked behind an absurdly high skill check, which took me 10mins of save scumming to actually get him to speak about it.
I personally would prefer to keep all companions, but I won't be complaining too much if there is a good story reason behind it. I dunno, like them deciding to swap sides and backstab us maybe? Eh, as long as it's properly written. But yes, 5 companions would be nice...
