Grunker has already explained this but I'll have a go anyway. Why I want to be able to respec companions fully. A short explanation (yeah right).
Systems Mastery.
I enjoy taking the set of tools that is given to me by the developer and messing around with those toys to their fullest extent in order to learn how they work, and exploit that learning. When I'm restricted from using some of those toys, that restricts my ability to learn & exploit the system fully. It's like I'm only allowed to use 70% of what the developers put into the game. This is unsatisfactory to me. (I will address the obvious 'just use mercenaries' response later) I understand that some players view those restrictions as 'part of the sandbox' and get a lot of enjoyment from working within those restrictions - I don't. This is a spectrum - some players prefer to work within the restrictions, others prefer to use the whole sandbox. Neither approach is better or worse: it's a matter of choice. Personally: I paid for the whole sandbox, I'm going to use the whole sandbox.
The Perfect Solution.
I enjoy taking my mastery of a system and using it to create a set of builds that form a perfect working team. It gives me a kick to create something that full of many moving parts to create a complex, many-faceted 'perfect solution' to the inherent puzzle proposed by a set of classes, races, feats, etc etc. When I'm restricted from creating that perfect solution because the characters I want to use can't be the classes I want, or already have imperfect feats chosen, or whatever it might be, that's unsatisfactory to me. Races are something that I choose to work within rather than change - I can rationalise Jubilost being a Sorcerer in my head, but not him being a Drow. This is a spectrum - some players prefer to work within all the restrictions, others prefer none, and others pick and choose within those they are happy to work with and those they want to replace. Neither approach is better or worse: it's a matter of choice.
I Want The Whole Cake.
Many players will say 'just use mercenaries' as a response to requests to have complete control over companions. I reject this solution, because of a few reasons. Firstly, games are often developed with companions in mind. Kingmaker for example is designed from the ground up with companions in mind, both from a systems perspective (for example, companions are optimal for advisors and even the ability to use mercs for this was only patched in long after the game's release) and a story perspective (there is almost no reactivity or storytelling in many sections of the game if you don't bring companions). Not taking companions reduces the enjoyment of the game significantly. Secondly, I sometimes actually manage to find companions that I like in these games, and I want to bring them along and enjoy their company. I get that you might think I should choose one or the other and be happy. Fuck you, I paid for the whole cake, I'm eating the whole cake.
Mods Aren't The Best Solution.
Many players will say 'just use mods' as a response to requests to have complete control over companions. I reject this solution, because mods are often buggy and aren't supported by the developer. Using mods is fine 5-10 years after the game has been released and no more patches are coming out. Providing the modder is competent and hasn't made errors in his coding. And providing the respec mod plays well with other mods that you want to use. And providing that the game developer doesn't suddenly, out of the blue, release a random patch 10 years after the release date that breaks everything (thanks Warhorse). No, modding is not the best solution. It's a solution, sure. But it is much better if the developer builds this feature into the game. Modding is not an equivalent solution to having the feature built-in.
The Difficulty Argument Is Nonsensical.
Many players will say 'full respec ruins the difficulty of the game'. To say this is to fundamentally misunderstand how difficulty actually plays out in a game, and also makes certain erroneous assumptions about how competent game developers are at balancing things. Firstly, how difficult a game is, is affected by hundreds of different factors that all work together to create a pretty chaotic system. To say that full respec ruins the delicate balance of difficulty, is to assume that such a thing exists in the first place - it doesn't. Take Kingmaker for example: trained monkeys could balance this game better than Owlcat. The game is well known for having a horrendous inverted difficulty curve, and has many characters with retarded builds and others with pretty competent ones (some of them require a bit of thought to really figure out what the devs intended, but eventually you figure out that they are actually pretty competent). So no, full respec doesn't ruin the difficulty curve, because there is no fucking difficulty curve, there's a difficulty rollercoaster. Whatever you do, whether you stick with Owlcat's builds or make your own, the difficulty is going to be all over the place and you have to just roll with that. Secondly, I can make my own difficulty using the game's setting and balance things that way. For example, using respec'd companions might allow me to tackle a higher difficulty setting than I might otherwise have been able to. I could also use mods to fix mistakes in the game's difficulty, and to make it more difficult to suit my tastes, if the game's maximum difficulty is no longer sufficient. Ultimately, I am competent enough to create my own game experience using the game's settings, and using mods where those fall short. I'm doing it right now with Kingmaker, and having a more enjoyable experience than I ever did before.
The Story Is Usually Overrated, Anyway.
Many players will say 'full respec ruins the story'. Where to begin with this one. First of all, what does and doesn't ruin the story/narrative is subjective. Personally I don't think Jubilost being a Sorcerer ruins Kingmaker's story in any sense. I can completely understand why some players might feel differently, but I don't think it does. This is a spectrum - some players prefer a completely vanilla environment where everything the developers put in place, is intact - other players prefer to be able to alter certain things that they think will not impact much, if at all, on the story. Neither approach is better or worse: it's a matter of choice. Secondly, let's be real here: some of these games have fucking trash writing. In many cases, there isn't much to fucking ruin. If I change Seelah from a ghetto paladin into a ghetto sorcerer, I don't think my enjoyment of her character is going to suffer much. If I put ketchup on the most expensive steak in the world, that's a pretty impactful decision which will ruin the flavour. If I put ketchup on a fucking hot dog, nothing gets ruined. It's a fucking hot dog. Forgive me if I don't much care for ruining some aspects of the narrative, when the narrative is pretty piss-poor to begin with. Of course, how much you appreciate a game's narrative is pretty subjective - one player's hot dog might be another's Montbéliarde steak. And that's fine too. Neither approach is better or worse: it's a matter of choice.
