Thoughts about how you learn more about companions

[Bloodonmoon]

Hi there !

Just did another run of the EA, and I saw that nothing really changed about that peculiar topic and I'm a bit worried.

Let's do a comparison to make sure everyone gets what I mean :

In Dragon Age Inquisition, you'll only hear banters from the companions that are following you in the adventure. So you'll hear them tchit-tchat.
On the other hand, all the companions you don't travel with still gain approval/disapproval, and you can unlock the cutscene to advance on their own storyline when you get back to base. Sometimes, to move forward with one of your companion, you'll need to go somewhere with them by taking them on your team, and onto a specific place. BUT the game lets you know about it, and it's even statted as quest, so you know what to do to move forward (your MC walks in the wild : "this is were Solas asked us to meet, but I'll need to come with him" so you know).

But in BG3................................. I hope it's because it's EA and they still haven't implemented correctly storylines with companions, but I really feel that whoever is NOT in your team, you will never uncover A THING about them.
=> I came accross grimforge, found the cultists of Shaar bodies, but since I did all that without ShadowHeart in my team, it just seems we will never be able to talk about it at all. (came back with her afterwards but she would say a thing)

I like commpanions' storyline, and I want to be able to go through each of them, but I don't want it to be a pain by having to think all the time "oh wait, should I switch companions here ? I might miss something !".

Does Larian think of adding a "companion quest" system that will help you know where to go with specific companions ? (I know you already have the log, but they make no sens, becaus eyou unlock things you never heard about from the said companions... Like for SH, her log tells me about her being a disciple of Shaar and having seen the bodies, but I never had such a conversation with her !! I can't even discuss tha topic when talking with her at camp, she is stuck with the same dialogue options as at the very begining of ACT1).

Don't get me wrong, I like discovering things by myself, but if you happen to cross what would unlock a companion cutscene/dialogue it would be nice to have your MC think out loud about it, or the companion himself back at camp, and being able to come back with him and unlock it.

I remember Wyll barking at me from killing the goblin leaders without him a few patches away, but in this new run, he never talked to me about anything, not his eye loss, not the devil he is looking for, etc and of course, I did not have him in my team.

This one run feels really like the companions that stayed at camp, would never EVER interact with you. (but still agree/disagree with your doings)

Am I the only one being frustrated ? What do you guys think ?

[everybe2]

Keep in mind that these are also Origin characters.
You will be able to play as them from the start

[Bloodonmoon]

Originally posted by everybe2:

Keep in mind that these are also Origin characters.
You will be able play as them from the start

I know, but if you can play the game with your own MC, it wouldn't make any sens to lock whole cutscenes and storylines out of your reach. In DOS2 you could still hear about 95%+ of each Origin Character story by playing your MC, the game would not penalise you, and instead let you have dialogues with the OC to learn more about them.

It would make no sens to me, for an RPG, to let you chose to create your own hero, but then penalise storyline and companions character development because you didn't chose to play an OC.

[everybe2]

In this case that`s for sure, if you do things without Wyll then these particular cutscenes will be gone for you.
For me: That`s great for replayability

[Bloodonmoon]

Originally posted by everybe2:

In this case that`s for sure, if you do things without Wyll then these particular cutscenes will be gone for you.
For me: That`s great for replayability

I'm ok with not unlocking a scene when it's logical => you fought the goblins, killed the one that had Wyll's eye on him, Wyll wasn't in your team, so you can't see him interact with the goblin => logic, it's fine.
BUT : you kill the goblin, you found the goblin drawing AND Wyll's eye on the goblin and you can NEVER ask Wyll about it once you get at camp => not logical I don't agree.

Those are the things that bother me. Same goes for ShadowHeart, I know about her being a disciple of Shaar, and all the things I find (items) or see (and MC say it outloud), even if she is not with me when I discover them, I don't see the logic in not letting me ask her about it.

Not sure if I'm being clear.

[Gulabius Jamunius]

Originally posted by Bloodonmoon:

Originally posted by everybe2:

In this case that`s for sure, if you do things without Wyll then these particular cutscenes will be gone for you.
For me: That`s great for replayability

I'm ok with not unlocking a scene when it's logical => you fought the goblins, killed the one that had Wyll's eye on him, Wyll wasn't in your team, so you can't see him interact with the goblin => logic, it's fine.
BUT : you kill the goblin, you found the goblin drawing AND Wyll's eye on the goblin and you can NEVER ask Wyll about it once you get at camp => not logical I don't agree.

Those are the things that bother me. Same goes for ShadowHeart, I know about her being a disciple of Shaar, and all the things I find (items) or see (and MC say it outloud), even if she is not with me when I discover them, I don't see the logic in not letting me ask her about it.

Not sure if I'm being clear.

The simple answer is that after act 1 you will have to choose a dedicated party of 4 (3 companions) and the rest will be removed. I don't know the story reason Larian will use an excuse to do this but they have confirmed you will have to commit to a party of 3 companions. Therefore, you won't have this problem of advancing their quests while they're at camp past the first part of the game. So, it is better to choose who u want to roll with from the start cuz the rest will be on the chopping block no matter what. I understand if you're not a fan of this design choice, but it does completely bypass the issue you are trying to highlight.

[Яeplicant]

Originally posted by Gulabius Jamunius:

Originally posted by Bloodonmoon:

I'm ok with not unlocking a scene when it's logical => you fought the goblins, killed the one that had Wyll's eye on him, Wyll wasn't in your team, so you can't see him interact with the goblin => logic, it's fine.
BUT : you kill the goblin, you found the goblin drawing AND Wyll's eye on the goblin and you can NEVER ask Wyll about it once you get at camp => not logical I don't agree.

Those are the things that bother me. Same goes for ShadowHeart, I know about her being a disciple of Shaar, and all the things I find (items) or see (and MC say it outloud), even if she is not with me when I discover them, I don't see the logic in not letting me ask her about it.

Not sure if I'm being clear.

The simple answer is that after act 1 you will have to choose a dedicated party of 4 (3 companions) and the rest will be removed. I don't know the story reason Larian will use an excuse to do this but they have confirmed you will have to commit to a party of 3 companions. Therefore, you won't have this problem of advancing their quests while they're at camp past the first part of the game. So, it is better to choose who u want to roll with from the start cuz the rest will be on the chopping block no matter what. I understand if you're not a fan of this design choice, but it does completely bypass the issue you are trying to highlight.

That's news to me but given how it was handled in D:OS2, I wouldn't be suprised if something similar might happen along the way. Any source on that one?

[RhodosGuard]

That just sounds ♥♥♥♥♥♥.
There need to be more companions then, and they need to introduce them in Act 1, if they're gonna force you to chose at the end of Act 1.
Most of the classes dont have companions yet.

Considering you might at least get Karlach (the Tiefling at the river (if you saved her)) that means you have 6 classes covered. (If the fact that karlach is a barbarian is true)

No Ranger, No Druid (unless Halsin becomes a choice), no Sorc, no Bard, no Paladin, no Monk. Not to speak of most races not being available as companions then.

given that you probably cant change Shadowhearts Domain most Domains will go unused.

Also Alignments would be unbalanced.
There are only 2 Evil Characters and 3 Good (again unless Carlach is Evil)

Well Astarion maybe strays more towards Chaotic Neutral, and Shadowheart into true neutral territory (as Shadowheart also likes some choices of abandoning people in need)

But back to the actual topic:

I dont think it's that bad. Certain items should be able to trigger conversations with companions, I can agree that much.

Showing SH the Justiciar Armor, or showing Wyll his Eye definitelly should open up dialogue options the same way finding a powerful artifact triggers Gale to become death, destroyer of magic items. Something he will do afaik, even if he's not in your party as soon as you go to camp with one in your inventory.

But anything that only happens during Gameplay shouldnt become a dialogue fest where you'll have to go through 10 dialogue options on each NPC because a singular event triggers one on each of those you didnt pick up.

[Ellorien]

That would be the worst design decision in the history of RPG. This game is already severely lacking in the RP department and party dynamic (with 90% content locked behind the long rest mechanic and easily missed triggers).

That being said, if true, that means there won’t be any additional characters to hire later (like that tiefling from Hell, for example). Likely fake news.

[Soul in Shadow]

I think the only reason that getting locked to three companions in D:OS2 worked was because of the level of flexibility offered by the levelling and respec system.
Even then, people immediately set about modding a way around the restriction.

If you really need a lockpick/stealth character or a particular spell for a quest it was easy to turn one of the existing characters into what is needed.

D&D 5E offers much less flexibility. If given a choice between keeping the origin characters as available party members or having to hire mercenaries to fill their party roles after act one, because I really need a dedicated arcane caster or cleric or stealthy character for a handful of quests, I can tell you right now what 99% of people will choose

[Ronin Gamer]

You make choices with who comes with you and those characters you learn more about them as you adventure and complete the tasks they ask of you. Those that sit at camp all the time, bare in mind you can swap party members at ANY TIME so for the EA it's not that big of a deal and on top of that you are going to replay it to try new classes and such so take new people with you each time if you want, but those that sit at camp that you never swap in won't develop as much. They'll still take part in a variety of discussions at camp so long as you aren't rushing through content and never long resting, but the more you leave them there and the more you never long rest the less development you'll see.

Keeping these things in mind, I'm alright with it for the most part. The only aspect to it that's a little annoying to me is things can be triggered at wildly different times sometimes. I've had a special visitor come to my camp shortly after I leave the druid grove and go to explore more of the map, or I've had that same visitor come see me when I'm in the middle of the goblin camp after I've done some things around the map. Different events trigger and certain ones can take priority based on how quickly you've moved through the map and if you've been taking long rests or not.

[Ronin Gamer]

Originally posted by Soul in Shadow:

I think the only reason that getting locked to three companions in D:OS2 worked was because of the level of flexibility offered by the levelling and respec system.
Even then, people immediately set about modding a way around the restriction.

If you really need a lockpick/stealth character or a particular spell for a quest it was easy to turn one of the existing characters into what is needed.

D&D 5E offers much less flexibility. If given a choice between keeping the origin characters as available party members or having to hire mercenaries to fill their party roles after act one, because I really need a dedicated arcane caster or cleric or stealthy character for a handful of quests, I can tell you right now what 99% of people will choose

I mean, that's how D&D is. Not sure much can be done to alter that. Plus if you get a character that doubles up on two roles rather well you can have one free position be whatever you may want. Shadowheart is that one for me usually. I don't hardly do any stealthing, I'm an up front guy, but her lockpicking is pretty great even if she's not a rogue and she's a cleric both with nice cleric spells and stealth stuff if I absolutely need it. Take her and I can be a little more experimental.
Spellcasters can be pretty experimental too depending on what spells you roll them with. melee and ranged fighters are a little more static, but again that's just kinda how D&D is.

[Grimreaper]

Originally posted by Яeplicant:

Originally posted by Gulabius Jamunius:

The simple answer is that after act 1 you will have to choose a dedicated party of 4 (3 companions) and the rest will be removed. I don't know the story reason Larian will use an excuse to do this but they have confirmed you will have to commit to a party of 3 companions. Therefore, you won't have this problem of advancing their quests while they're at camp past the first part of the game. So, it is better to choose who u want to roll with from the start cuz the rest will be on the chopping block no matter what. I understand if you're not a fan of this design choice, but it does completely bypass the issue you are trying to highlight.

That's news to me but given how it was handled in D:OS2, I wouldn't be suprised if something similar might happen along the way. Any source on that one?

Originally posted by Ellorien:

That would be the worst design decision in the history of RPG. This game is already severely lacking in the RP department and party dynamic (with 90% content locked behind the long rest mechanic and easily missed triggers).

That being said, if true, that means there won’t be any additional characters to hire later (like that tiefling from Hell, for example). Likely fake news.

it says at the very bottom of the Pinned BG3 EA FAQ
Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.

It's funny seeing a regular asking for a source for something that has been on the steam discussion page since 2020. i hope you don't have a lot of "read the store page" post Яeplicant, cuz that would be kinda embarrassing

[Ellorien]

Whoever wrote “just like in real life” in FAQ obviously either is very young or does not go out much or both, otherwise he would have never said such a foolish thing.
In “real life” friends and enemies come and go. People find new friends and new lovers all the time.
If the we are indeed “going to have to commit” then this is yet another proof that this game has absolutely nothing in common with the original games where you had a huge pool of potential companions throughout the whole campaign.
What a joke.

[RhodosGuard]

Someone on the Dev team really went:
"Once you become 30 years of age, you are not allowed to make new friends"

It would make sense however, if each act had it's own pack of Companions, that basically get re-selected at the end of every act. So you go with Astarion SH and Lae'zel into act 2 get 5 new companions and have to decide on 3 out of the now 8 companions for Act 3.

But even then it would be pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥.
I think the only reasoning that makes sense is if the companions background quests like overlap or exclude each other and for some weird reason you cannot do the background quest for 4 companions in Act 2 because it kills sequencing.

[Яeplicant]

Originally posted by Grimreaper:

Originally posted by Яeplicant:

That's news to me but given how it was handled in D:OS2, I wouldn't be suprised if something similar might happen along the way. Any source on that one?

Originally posted by Ellorien:

That would be the worst design decision in the history of RPG. This game is already severely lacking in the RP department and party dynamic (with 90% content locked behind the long rest mechanic and easily missed triggers).

That being said, if true, that means there won’t be any additional characters to hire later (like that tiefling from Hell, for example). Likely fake news.

it says at the very bottom of the Pinned BG3 EA FAQ
Is your party permanent or can you change members out throughout the adventure?
Recruited companions will be at camp when not in the adventuring party, and can be swapped in and out at camp. After the first act however you are going to have to commit, also just like in real life.

It's funny seeing a regular asking for a source for something that has been on the steam discussion page since 2020. i hope you don't have a lot of "read the store page" post Яeplicant, cuz that would be kinda embarrassing

Well, even those informed can still be asking for a source now and then, you know. It's not actually that big of a deal you're trying to make, buddy. It's a human trait. Unless you know everything by heart at a moments notice at any given time?

Still, it's about what I expected in the first place and does make sense, if at one point at the story, half the crew want to keep the power instead of getting rid of it. Astarion for example strikes me as one that rather wants the newly-acquired powers with obvious risks involved, rather than letting go of it.