Party members shouldn't level up if not in your party.

[albanshqiptar]

I understand it's for convenience but it kind of cheapens your reward for deciding to invest into certain characters for a play through. For example, any lock you want to open there is no reason not to return to camp and pick Astarion and then send him back when he's done. Or maybe swapping in Shadowheart just for the combat encounters in act 2 because she hard counters enemies. The only thing stopping you from doing these things is just that it's tedious.

Maybe make it a game option that lets you turn this off.

[TyRich]

You'd be stuck with all the companions you start with... There isn't enough content to individually level a whole batch of separate companions.

[Orion Invictus]

As a setting? Sure, if you want your companions to be permanently underleveled, it's your choice.
As a default, unavoidable mechanic? Absolutely not.

[Kyutaru]

This isn't the old editions. 5e promotes offering more and more options for your character rather than hyperspecializing you into being a one-trick pony. Making characters all gain the same XP goes along the same school of thought. You don't want to punish players for not selecting something. You want to offer them the freedom to use whatever is at their disposal.

[Δ︎MΞ︎NTIH ✬]

I don't think that this should be a thing.

When you cleared an area of enemies, then that's it. They do not respawn. Same goes for quests & exploration. So how exactly would you level companions in camp when you go to the next act & have to do their personal quests, when every enemy is a higher level than they are?

[albanshqiptar]

Originally posted by TyRich:

You'd be stuck with all the companions you start with... There isn't enough content to individually level a whole batch of separate companions.

Good point. Maybe they auto level up to you when discovered at least?

[albanshqiptar]

Originally posted by Kyutaru:

This isn't the old editions. 5e promotes offering more and more options for your character rather than hyperspecializing you into being a one-trick pony. Making characters all gain the same XP goes along the same school of thought. You don't want to punish players for not selecting something. You want to offer them the freedom to use whatever is at their disposal.

Too much freedom is sometimes a bad thing in game design. Punishing is bad though I do agree. Maybe they auto level up at a slower rate at least?

[Orion Invictus]

Originally posted by albanshqiptar:

Originally posted by Kyutaru:

This isn't the old editions. 5e promotes offering more and more options for your character rather than hyperspecializing you into being a one-trick pony. Making characters all gain the same XP goes along the same school of thought. You don't want to punish players for not selecting something. You want to offer them the freedom to use whatever is at their disposal.

Too much freedom is sometimes a bad thing in game design. Punishing is bad though I do agree. Maybe they auto level up at a slower rate at least?

Too much freedom is only bad when players can't handle it. For players who know what they want to do, it's great.

[albanshqiptar]

Originally posted by AMENTIH:

I don't think that this should be a thing.

When you cleared an area of enemies, then that's it. They do not respawn. Same goes for quests & exploration. So how exactly would you level companions in camp when you go to the next act & have to do their personal quests, when every enemy is a higher level than they are?

Maybe they auto level at a slower rate or you could pay a trainer to level them up? I just find swapping in and out characters for a really small task or encounter cheapens the party system. It's a shame the max party size is four.

[Midas]

Nah, this is a system games moved away from ages ago and good riddance. Even in a normal situation this would be a bad idea, but nevermind a game like this where enemies are a limited commodity and there potentially just isn't a way to catch a character up if you decide to try someone else.

I find actual RPG groups are dropping the notion of individual exp as well, because it's just dumb to have one member of the party a level behind because they had to miss some sessions. Also it's less book-keeping to have just one exp bar to keep track of.

[albanshqiptar]

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

Originally posted by albanshqiptar:

Too much freedom is sometimes a bad thing in game design. Punishing is bad though I do agree. Maybe they auto level up at a slower rate at least?

Too much freedom is only bad when players can't handle it. For players who know what they want to do, it's great.

I disagree. Too much freedom sounds like a great thing but you don't realise what fun ecounters/gameplay you have when a dev intentionally makes an aspect of the game hard to do. The most simple example would be when you get all your weapons taken away from you which forces you to interact with game in ways you would never have thought of before.

[albanshqiptar]

Originally posted by Midas:

Nah, this is a system games moved away from ages ago and good riddance. Even in a normal situation this would be a bad idea, but nevermind a game like this where enemies are a limited commodity and there potentially just isn't a way to catch a character up if you decide to try someone else.

I find actual RPG groups are dropping the notion of individual exp as well, because it's just dumb to have one member of the party a level behind because they had to miss some sessions. Also it's less book-keeping to have just one exp bar to keep track of.

Yeah it streamlines it which I liked at first. I just find it a shame the max party size is four.

[Midas]

Originally posted by albanshqiptar:

Originally posted by Midas:

Nah, this is a system games moved away from ages ago and good riddance. Even in a normal situation this would be a bad idea, but nevermind a game like this where enemies are a limited commodity and there potentially just isn't a way to catch a character up if you decide to try someone else.

I find actual RPG groups are dropping the notion of individual exp as well, because it's just dumb to have one member of the party a level behind because they had to miss some sessions. Also it's less book-keeping to have just one exp bar to keep track of.

Yeah it streamlines it which I liked at first. I just find it a shame the max party size is four.

I just swap them out for whoever seems to have the most relevant goals to whatever is currently going on.

[Umbral Priestess]

Worst thing to ever suggest, and givin how long it takes to level up in this game, especially the last levels, this would make most party members you get late game useless.

I am very glad they didn't do that. it would have been terrible.

[zpc]

As we are forced to rotate the party composition in order to get access to quest variations (not talking about companion quests) it is a godsend that there is a party exp pool instead of an individual character exp pool.

[Orion Invictus]

Originally posted by albanshqiptar:

Originally posted by Orion Invictus:

Too much freedom is only bad when players can't handle it. For players who know what they want to do, it's great.

I disagree. Too much freedom sounds like a great thing but you don't realise what fun ecounters/gameplay you have when a dev intentionally makes an aspect of the game hard to do. The most simple example would be when you get all your weapons taken away from you which forces you to interact with game in ways you would never have thought of before.

On the other hand, maybe having all your weapons taken away isn't fun for some people, and those for whom it IS fun can just unequip them. Freedom.