Yeah Wrath of the Righteous was a clutch find. I probably would never have heard of it if it weren't my renewed interest in cRPGs when BG3 was announced. I'm pretty sure I first heard about it on these boards, but it definitely scratched that BG1/2 itch. I enjoyed it more than Kingmaker just for the driving plot and more interesting Companions. I had fun with POE also Deadfire and Tyranny too, but Wrath of the Righteous felt like more of a proper BG callback, just with 3.5 as the basis and a bazillion class builds lol. It's almost too build focus heavy for my tastes, just so frontloaded into those initial choices there, but it certainly gives enough options to make every new Character feel pretty unique at least. I think Pathfinder's heavy class build focus would probably be too intense if it didn't start at lvl1 again lol, but that's what they did for WotR so it works for me. I really liked the DLC that does the same story over again, but for the more regular folks and that perspective. I like the idea of a campaign series that's designed to have the player starting over at lvl1 again, rather than a sequel where it basically starts at say lvl 8 like BG2.
All it really needs is like 50 more portraits, maybe a dozen more avatar head options and soundsets, and I think they got it pretty much dialed.
I think WotR probably works a bit better overall, before the player has learned all the ins and outs of the Pathfinder class build alchemy. The approach to game balance is almost epistemological that way - you know like if you don't know that one thing (say one subclass, or one type of animal companion, or one spell focus) ends up being just objectively better than other choices and will sort of bust all the encounters at a given difficulty level and the game can hum along that way. To use an example from another game I like, in Axis and Allies (any version) the game tends to work better on balance before the first round scripted openers are all figured out, when the player is still just sort of casually winging it and doesn't yet know that the starting unit set up favors a certain side or a particular opening play pattern. WotR is a bit like that, where it's more fun before you got the min max all planned out in advance. But there's enough variability just in the choices on offer, and initial randomizers like that, that it pushes out the balance Qs pretty far to the point where it almost doesn't matter cause there's just much going on there. Easier to shake the bag and mix things up, when the bag itself is that large lol.
One thing WotR really nailed in my view was the full party dynamic with lots of companions to choose from. Also the gibbing of enemies! That first time you chunk a giant fly and watch it explode into little pieces or squash some random enemies into puddles of ooze, that just feels so Baldur's Gate! For me the only thing holding it back really is the setting. If it was set in FR and had that draw as well, then there'd be no contest. Still there are some things I feel BG3 does a bit better. Like within a given encounter/combat, I feel like there are often more options to resolve an encounter in interesting ways in BG3 with a bit less meta, whereas in WotR it's a bit more rinse and repeat once you know your ultimate combos and just use them constantly. In that sense Pathfinder can get a bit dry, but then it makes up for that quite a bit by just giving the player more to work with in other areas like visual/aesthetic progression, custom portraits/scripts, and even the little things like choosing colors or whether or not to wear a hood hehe.
