No Dwarf companion

[Luk]

I just wanted a cool, stout and good hearted Dwarf companion, just as fleshed out as the other origins.

[Woldy]

There were rumors of a female halfling werewolf companion who got scrapped. would have been a very unique companion.

[Comrade Glootchi]

i'll be ur dwarf companion o7 (I'm 3ft 2 irl)

[Woldy]

Originally posted by Comrade Glootchi:

i'll be ur dwarf companion o7 (I'm 3ft 2 irl)

Are you actually a dwarf? 3,2 is like... 100 cm.

[✙205🍉🐆→]

No dwarves, gnomes and halflings only lanky

[Ichthyic]

Originally posted by Zsrai:

Originally posted by kojak000:

The problem is that dwarves are kind of mandatory for a 'ragtag bunch of misfits', so that they were NOT included was kind of refreshing. That said, Faerun is human dominated afaik, so that there weren't more humans is kind of a bummer.

I dunno, two humans and a half-human is still pretty human-centric. Especially since Shadowheart is functionally just a human with pointy ears, for as much as her race comes up and matters. Hell, even Astarion feels very "human with pointy ears" since his Elf-ness doesn't come up either.

Shadowheart should have just been some dumpy Halfling, honestly.

Astarion's race DOES come into play, exactly once in a notable fashion IIRC. Shadowheart's race is entirely in keeping with who her parents are.

[Gloomseeker]

Originally posted by JimmysTheBestCop:

Originally posted by Gloomseeker:

Apart from that annoying Kitsune character in WotR.

I would love having a crazy gnome like Tiax or Jan Jansen tag along or even a no nonsense killer like Montaron and I'm not even talking about Korgan.

By the way I think gnomes could romance Aerie back in BG2.

Jan stealing Boo as a prank on Minsc. Hilarious.

I feel the bg3 companions are just there as some kind of anime dating game. Outside of that they are very bland and no interaction.

Honestly I think bg3 is good. But I am bewildered by the amount of praise it's gets.

Easily the worst companions in the entire saga. Without question. They are all 1 dimensional and outside of camp add almost nothing.

Larian needed them just for quests.

I almost thought WotR had to many companions but BG3 and these awful origin characters I'm just like ok wow.

The thing is being one dimensional in D&D is not a cardinal sin far from it.

I mean take Kivan for instance. He was basically a Clint Eastwood character in a D&D setting and it worked perfectly well.

Take Khalid and Jaheira for instance, they were almost a caricature with the bossy and domineering female and her less assertive husband.

Garrick was almost straight out of Holy Grail and was meant to be a joke.

Shar Teel was pretty straightforward as well and she was such a memorable character with some of the best one liners along with Viconia.

BG1 did play with stereotypes, you had the femme fatale with Safana, the naive noble girl with Skye. Coran was the womanizer adventurer.

Basically you could sum up each character concept with one line and it worked perfectly fine.

Some may say that things have evolved and that we can no longer get away with such stereotypes but I'd point out that the problem with BG3 is that they took things too far. It's as if each and every character has some dark dirty secret that makes them incredibly special and breaks any consistency the setting might have had (making one of these characters a Chosen of Mystra who confesses about bumping uglies with the goddess of magic herself is a bit much IMHO).

Take Pillars of Eternity for instance. You have characters with depth but that doesn't necessarily make them some munchkin's wet dream. Edér for instance is one of the most likeable companion you can get in any game and he is basically a country boy who happens to be a war veteran disillusioned with his religious belief. There's depth and room for character building and growth. Edér is not the son of a duke and he is not buddies with deities or devils but he still stands out and manages to come across as a character with aspirations and a personality.

In all fairness BG3 NPCs are in line with the ones from DOS2. They are all very special and very deeply entangled in the story. At this point I don't think that Larian could come up with a character who would be just a simple guy and still be interesting. That's not how they roll.

[Comrade Glootchi]

Originally posted by Woldy:

Originally posted by Comrade Glootchi:

i'll be ur dwarf companion o7 (I'm 3ft 2 irl)

Are you actually a dwarf? 3,2 is like... 100 cm.

dwarfy as the day i was born

[VoiD]

Originally posted by Zsrai:

Originally posted by kojak000:

The problem is that dwarves are kind of mandatory for a 'ragtag bunch of misfits', so that they were NOT included was kind of refreshing. That said, Faerun is human dominated afaik, so that there weren't more humans is kind of a bummer.

I dunno, two humans and a half-human is still pretty human-centric. Especially since Shadowheart is functionally just a human with pointy ears, for as much as her race comes up and matters. Hell, even Astarion feels very "human with pointy ears" since his Elf-ness doesn't come up either.

Shadowheart should have just been some dumpy Halfling, honestly.

This sentiment appears to be quite popular. However, when you look at the data Larian released some time ago, it tells a different story. The overwhelming majority of players chose Humans, followed by Elves and Half-Elves. Then there's a significant drop, and the "cool" races like Dragonborn and Drow are listed in a lower tier. After an even larger drop, you finally get to the shorter races, which are only more popular than Gith. It seems like not many players want to play as racist space goblins.

When it comes to romance preferences, Shadowheart is the clear favorite among players, and for good reason. On the other hand, Astarion received the most rejections. I assume most players were deliberately choosing the "wrong" options to discourage his advances.

So, despite some claims on the internet about wanting more unconventional or unattractive races, and even replacing some of the more popular choices, it wouldn't be a wise move on Larian's part. The truth is, the good-looking and tall species are by far the most popular and sought-after options among the vast majority of players. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of the relatively smaller number of players creating Dwarves and Gnomes did it just to try out the character creation.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1086940/view/6199820457241938859?l=brazilian

I want to clarify that I'm specifically discussing the idea of replacing existing characters. I wouldn't be against adding shorter races as additional companions. Dwarves, in particular, are iconic companions in the D&D and fantasy universes. However, I also believe the game could benefit from more attractive companions, as it seems like almost everyone gravitates towards Shadowheart as she's the only real option.

[C O M M U N A R]

Originally posted by Gloomseeker:

The problem with BG3 is that they took things too far. It's as if each and every character has some dark dirty secret that makes them incredibly special and breaks any consistency the setting might have had (making one of these characters a Chosen of Mystra who confesses about bumping uglies with the goddess of magic herself is a bit much IMHO).

This||| When half of the camp hides its dark secrets from you, and you feel like a detective under interrogation at the beginning of the game, because demanding that the companions reveal their secrets are the only options for dialogue with them. It looks especially funny and stupid when you just looked at the introduction to these characters in the character creation menu. As for Gale and Wyll, while they are level 1 at the beginning of the game, their "epic" backstories remind me this meme:

https://youtu.be/QoO2eI9IioE?si=EFRDFs7N76oN2aK4

[Gloomseeker]

I actually made a female dwarf barbarian to play the game and I was gutted at how hard it was to get anywhere during fights. It didn't help that I had played a wood elf before... The way the game deals with character speed you really NEED to have longstrider cast on your short character because it's just too much of a disadvantage otherwise.

I don't think that it's because short characters are not attractive or popular. It may also have to do with the fact the game tips the scales in favour of bigger characters. In a turn based game if your character can't connect with the enemy because he doesn't move far enough it's a pretty big deal.

Back in BG 1&2 the short races made the best thieves and came with the best saving throws making them the smart choice for many builds.

Dropping race based stat modifiers removed some of the incentive to play as a gnome that's for sure and it's a bit ironic that now dwarves are more suited to full time casters who normally wouldn't have access to medium armour instead of the more traditional dwarf fighter.

[kojak000]

Originally posted by C O M M U N A R:

Tieflings should be something very rare and unique, but the game is full of them. At the same time, there are entire nations of dwarves, halflings and gnomes, but we don't have a single companion of them. But in our group there are several elves (purebloods and half-bloods) and a Tiefling.

This I totally agree with - tieflings are way too common in BG3; don't know about the stunty races though, since there are a bunch of them here and there. Honestly though, out of all the races and only counting the OG companions, it would have made more sense to not have a tiefling and replace her with a human.

[EasyOut]

short kings represent!

[NeroTheAngel]

yeah its sad that there are no dwarf, gnomes or halfling origin character companions. Thats the reason why I made my Guardian a Halfling

[Ekelak]

Another possibility is that it wasn't put there because it's not a full-fledged Larian game. They keep it for their game.

[Metrod125]

Its weird how there's no dwarf companion in this game.
They did a dwarf in DOS2, yet no dwarf in BG3...

Like what in the actual ♥♥♥♥. WHERE IS MY GODS DAMN SEA SHANTY SINGING 2.0 DWARF LARIAN?!