Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous vs BG3

Pondering about re-installing this, as I've yet to finish (bought September 2021). Also, any game that takes obvious inspiration of the camping+traveling system in the Realms Of Arkania trilogy is by defaut a decent one. Granted, with Kingmaker I took one big time-out of almost a year also with my save. And I generally like both of those games. But with WOTR, it's not one but two longer time-outs now (chapter 3ish, with the in-game clock showing well over 60 hours AFAIR.)

It's just too much. Even compared to Icewind Dale, the amount of combat is bloody off the charts. Outside of rather mediocre puzzles (this ain't no Grimrock 2), there's also not much to spice that up, whereas Kingmaker had you engage in "genuine" detective work in the bloom chapter. Additionally, I whish there was more unique combat (which they do too), rather than mostly trash or copypaste. If Rogue Trader does the same, but this time in turn-based, I'll give that a pass.

Unsure what settings I was on, I think it was a mix of "normal" and a notch above that (also no auto-leveling of companions, enemy damage at 100% with the default being 80%, also tuned the setting that basically slashed enemy damage resistance in half to be the normal 100% etc.) I remember there was a setting for enemy numbers, but I think that is on the lower end by default expect for the highest difficulty presets available.

Hm......

I’m with you on the frustration with the sheer number of same-y enemy encounters in the Pathfinder games. It was the main reason I never finished Kingmaker. As I probably said somewhere in this thread already, I did finish WotR and found loads to like about it, but there were times it was a chore.

I found I could either make the encounters boringly easy and make progress at an acceptable rate, or make individual encounters difficult enough to be interesting but then move forward at a mind-numbingly tedious rate. I think in the end I settled on normal difficulty when wandering round the smaller world maps as there were fewer encounters and playing mainly turn-based, then turning the difficulty down when the number of encounters went up and using RTwP (mainly without pause). Which basically made most of the complex difficulty settings useless to me, as it was too much of a faff to keep fiddling with them so I just toggled between a couple of the defaults.

It also helped that I took the Trickster path in WotR with an Arcane Trickster sorceror with high charisma. There’s a Trickster path ability that makes enemies either save or die when they first see you that I got at around level 17. That thinned the crowds somewhat

This game is Really all that people Says ?
im Really Burned out with BG3 already after 11 games this is getting nowhere for me..
so its worth at least give a try ?
(in case yu are wondering i just went back to CK3 becouse im really burned out with BG3.)

You played 11 games of BG3?

I'd say so, but it is definitely on the rough end of the modern cRPG spectrum and it's hard to recommend to someone with limited experience.
My first game was very rough even with the suggestions below (except Buffbot, wish I installed that earlier).
Also, it takes until Act 3 (about lvl 10) for it to reeaally open up.

My suggestion, bare minmum, is to play on Normal or lower and install the Bubbles Buffbot mod
https://www.nexusmods.com/pathfinderwrathoftherighteous/mods/195

From there, unless you want to go in completely blind then ignore below.

For builds, I'd suggest either picking a Mythic Path to follow and find a class that synergises with that or, do the opposite, pick a class/archetype first then path.
e.g. Oracle -> Angel; Sorcerer -> Lich, Wizard -> Azata.
cRPG bro has some pretty good ones, which might be overkill tho but helps with restartitis and the game isn't very good for signposting which Path is good at what.

Crusade management, either auto or google whats best.

Last suggestion, the puzzles, most of them suck and/or are very complicated; Can't remember a good one. Either try them, google the answers or leave for another playthrough with answers.

That kinda helps solve with the main flaws the game has and, after that, no more googling.

Otherwise, there is PoE 1/2 or DOS2.

I think both Kingmaker and WotR are well worth a play, especially if picked up on sale which I think they often are. Despite having lots of issues with both, and giving up on Kingmaker half way through, I still found loads to like. And while I personally prefer BG3 to both by some distance, there are certainly others who'd rank them the other way around.

Yup i Made 3 Hero Games ( i already talked about it a lot.. but i felt i did something wrong and remade the entire Run 3 times just to realize that the endings were the same dosent matter save the gith or not.. i would say that saving him its worse.)
then i Made more 2 of evil just to See how i goes.. ( 1 durge, 1 Gale)
i liked a lot more the evil way becouse of the ending.. so i just made it again and again.
then 3.0 came out and i had to Remade All my Runs From Start becouse of the different Builds i Love to use..
But in the Last One i just Stop before taking the Boat to the Final Battle yu know dosent care anymore its all shit the endings..
even worse if yu expect anything at the hero journey.

Now im so disapointed with this game already that last time i even Tried to Start a New Game with a New Character i gave up before meeting laezel at the Nautiloide..
its for yu to understand how much the act 3 and the endings of this game broke me. really took away my will to even try again.
(now im here at the Forum Trying to Help others with the Shitshow that this game has became.. always gave Tips when someone need and stuff like that.. becouse i beleave i saw evrything and already did evrything..)
Probably there are still secrets to be found.. but im really pissed off with this game already and dont care to look anymore..hauhauhauha

I will give a Try yu Know Maybe this Game will Scratch that It that i Need..
if Not thats Fine too i will Just Make the Outremer Empire and Slay some Heathens with some Crusades on Ck3
(Nothing Better then Become the Sword of God and Beat Gengis Khan..)
or i Build the North Sea Empire and RAid the entire europe just to have a Bunch of sons and Comcubines becouse Why not yu know ? im a Viking..xD
(Hello Basileus Just Give me evrything yu have, yu Too Pope F.U and gave me the F. Hat so can i have fun)
even better im Son of Lothbrook so Respect. hauhauhauhauha
yu can even Make Some Blot and Slay evrybody to Odin.. its like yu are a True Psycopath will not lie.. yu can even hear then Screaming.. not joking.
(the Famed BloodEagle too.)
in 1 of my Games as Ivar the Boneless i get the chance to do a Bloodeagle on the pope..haha
he did not survive.. sorry.
lol
(but yu can Choose his Brothers to Start with if yu Like More.. IronSide is the Dude will not lie.)
Just a LIttle Secret.. the strongest most Cheesest of then all in CK3 is Heasteinn.. want to make world domination he is the guy.

Damn, I wish I had known that beforehand. Not gonna throw like 60-70 hours in the bin now. It just frustrates me personally as else I'd like the games a LOT more. Did you play Kingmaker to the last chapter? That was actually hideously bad (House At The Edge Of Time + Runup To The "Optinal" Final Final Boss). The maps were just full of copypaste super mobs, beefed to the hilt. You had to apply the same buff routines before every fight. That wasn't challenging, that was an exercise in tedium. :-(
Naturally, on low difficulties, you can just roflstomp everything, but that's no fun to me.

Shame, as else I have really fond memories of Kingmaker too, including traveling the country side alongside to this music. Unlikely though that I'll ever fully replay that again (the early chapters were the best, imo).

Finally beat WoTR.
Imo I do consider WoTR to be a better game overall the exceptions to this is obviously the presentation BG3 is just a more '' AAA '' looking game and also the companions are more responsive ( with exceptions especially in act 3 ).
A big issue in WoTR imo is that the companies don't react or talk to you about things they should have pretty big issues with or feel very strongly about in some other way.
There was a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE decision I made towards the end that should've caused one of my companions to basically turn on me completely, but instead she basically just hesitated for a second and then proceeded to fight on my side and never talked about it at all afterwards.
The companions in WoTR can just feel a bit dead sometimes and like they're ignoring everything that's happening.

Act 5 and 6 are fairly short and in act 6 especially the game just throws a billion ultra strong enemies at you one after the other I think there's one demon henchman boss that gets resurrected like 4 times in a short span of time lol.
I still like where the story went way more than BG3 tho, the story in WoTR stayed more of a personal story while BG3 felt like it was supposed to be a personal story but then became Mass Effect 3 very suddenly in act 3.

Pathfinder games have more enjoyable combat imo and being able to pick between turn based and non-turn based on demand is awesome but it has sort of the opposite problem of BG3 in that it's too hard sometimes whereas BG3 is too easy.
But especially in the last act in WoTR it basically just becomes '' everyone is a glass canon '' you just blow up your enemy before they blow you up hopefully.

WoTR also handles the '' embrace your powers '' powerfantasy much better, there's so much variety and crazy things you can do and become and it has a huge impact makes the game much more replayable.

You scare me. Sounds like Kingmaker all over.

Yeah, Act 3 in WotR is where it's at. The game peaks in Act 3. Act 4 is okay but not as awesome as Act 3 (and it truly is awesome; I always want Act 3 to go on forever). Then it takes a dive in Act 5. Act 6 is the closing act and is effectively the apilogue even though the final boss confrontation/battle happens there.

I adore WOTR and agree its overall the better game. I even think that relatively speaking, it has better graphics. As in, it has better graphics compared to other things of its level than BG3 does compared to other things at its level. I understand how the Alushinyrra chapter could get annoying because of the camera mehanic, but I actually really like it. Not only does the mechanic do a job of replicating the shifting chaos of the setting, but I enjoy the storytelling of the area as a whole. You're dropped into an area where you're kind of out of your depth, and it leans more on social interaction in a way that its hard for crpgs to do. It's far from perfect, but the narrative shifts to making alliances, navigating social interactions and testing just how willing you are to bend to the way the city does things versus how much you're going to stand by your own principles.

I think the thing that holds that happen back is a point I actually first heard brought up in relation to FF16 and its side quests; the game is limited in the ways you can interact with the world, its mainly text boxes and rolls in those text boxes, or combat, so social stuff is a bit limited. But it does valiantly with what it's got available.

I would also add a controversial opinion. WotR (and other RPGs) do reactivity better than BG3.

While BG3 has a lot more reactivity for even compareable mundanes things like your race or class (although Arcanum already did that much better), the effect of that is rather limited. Basically your race/class allows you to replace one skill check with an automatic success.
WotR on the other hand does not really react to race or class, but the reaction to your mythic path is huge and not only alters companion interaction but also parts of the plot. And I do not only mean things like the Swarm that Walks that forsakes all companions and allies and devours everything in its path with its clones, but also "normal" paths like Lichs who raises slain enemies as undead companions, Aeon who completely changes the plot by time traveling back and preventing events from happening. And there are also smaller things like how the Azata has to free Aivu from the slave market and has personal scenes like the round table with his mimic knights.

Sure, just being a specific race or class in BG3 should not have that extreme consequences compared to your choice of mythic being, but I would have expected to at least some race/class specific quests or having some "we don't serve your kind" moments where some races have to approach a situation differently than others instead of just automatically succeed on a skill check for the same result.

Agreed.

Honestly, were it not for 10.2 about to drop over in WoW and the fact I'm in desperate need of a new PC soon, I'd likely have started playing WotR again/returning to my good Demon Path run. I've even got a friend wanting to give it a try due to the way I talk so fondly about it, who came into BG3 as their first look at cRPGs (a mistake and a half, imo, but I'll fix that soon!), and wants to give other, better cRPGs a try due to their distaste with BG3 after a while. So I'll be buying it for them in the next couple of months, DLCs and all. They're really excited to make their chaotic tiefling - though are still torn between Trickster or Lich path!


I'm honestly forever disappointed that the most my drow encountered top-side was "wow, a drow? your kind usually aren't known for being nice :)" or the Absolute's goblin army falling over themselves to please him. Like no, you don't need to make people be trying to attack me on sight constantly... but a bit of combat here and there, or at least quite tense situations that would prompt dialogue checks to possibly avoid combat, wouldn't have gone amiss.

Regardless of Seldarine drow existing, and WotC's efforts to make drow less "evil-coded" because of... I think it was weird political stuff about them being PoC-coded?? idk. But regardless of all that, I'd still prefer drow be treated normally; that is, most people will outright distrust them or be openly hostile, and some will even attack first rather than stopping to chitchat.

Like, I enjoy playing drow who ran from the Underdark, and are trying to be better than their culture, but are constantly pitted up against such adversity which tests them in physical and emotional ways. It's part of why Viconia's story in BG1 and 2 was so compelling, it's why the early Drizzt novels were some of my favorites; there is a compelling narrative to be found in trying to be a mostly good person, in the face of adversity based upon stereotypes and the past deeds of a people you no longer associate with, but share the blood of.

I remember my Demon run, he was a tiefling - and tieflings in WotR especially are treated with great suspicion and hostility due to their heritage. I felt very engaged in playing him as a mostly good-leaning but somewhat "ends justify the means" soldier, who was often dealing with disparaging remarks, distrust, and racism which might have made him turn to a darker path.

I didn't ever really feel that same engagement while playing my redeemed Durge drow. Yeah, he got lots of race prompts in Act 1... but aside from making the Absolute camps a walk in the park, it didn't really have much effect on he or the people travelling with him. Not the way it feels it should have, given drow history.

Also wotr also does racial interactivity in various small ways. If you play a dhampir, then a bartender in act 1 will give you a potion of harm because they count as healing potions for you. As a dwarf you can also have an exchange about the dwarven god Torag with a dwarf paladin of his, just to name two that I experienced. As a tiefling, your tiefling companion will admit that he sometimes feels the urge to do evil because of his heritage if you ask, whereas if you're any other race he snaps at you for asking the question. You can also choose a deity for every character no katter their class and that gets reactions. Twice as a cleric of pharasma i got signs of my goddesses approval for resisting and fighting the undead, and also got stat bonuses at least once fighting a demonic ghoul. Its not as consistent as in BG3, but its there and comes as a cool surprise that feels special.

And I would add to all of this (while completely agreeing with you all) that WotR also does range of dialogue options way better than BG3. Note I'm not saying quality of the writing here; just the range of different options for how the PC responds to NPCs.

I don't think the games are even that far apart in terms of writing. For dialogue options I would say the writing quality are pretty much h the same, but wotr does indeed have more, so I think it wins there. In terms of companions, I don't think they're miles off either. I think wotr has some great companions with really compelling stories. I admit that the performances in BG3 are better though, and Karlach is still the best companion in either game. But the story of wotr I'd overall way better. In thag it actually makes sense when you lay it all out. Plus the story is always centered on us the player and our development. All those dialogue options also let us shape our character with a variety of personalities that BG3 doesn't pull off. Wotr isn't a masterpiece of writing, but it's pretty good.

Then again, if Larian would fully pull their design through (and spend all the x-tra cash on it as opposed to cinematics), Infinity-Engine-Likes wouldn't stand much of a chance (and the likes of Witcher are already firmly outclassed anyways by both Pathfinders and BG3s, but they're more like semi-interactive movies anyway, which is fine, as that was the designers' goal). In a lot of ways, Larian are aiming at what Warren Spector was talking about here all along.

He'd also written pieces about combat being ONE option, but not the only one, as far back as in the 1990s, whereas in Owlcats Pathfinders, combat is the main dish wherever you go (just like BG2 et all, in particular the middle sections). And engaging or not engaging in it is very very very rarely a choice. The game makes that choice for you, just like say DOS1 had done, as enemies were likewise gatekeeping every path across the game's maps (and combat is a super important source of getting XP, without which you're screwed eventually). At least in comparison to similar games, combat in BG3 is more of a choice already and your experience may even differ here depending on the character you pick, as NPCs may treat you more or less hostile depending on that. It's not original Fallout in any way (Pascifist runs, anyone), but yeah.

As much as I still like Infinity Engine games and their direct offspring, even in 1998, they were pretty static even compared to older Ultima games already. As a consequence, when things really *click" in BG3, even the simple task of say, freeing somebody out of prison has my brain firing on all cylinders. And whilst the actual outcome may be the same, you never know what's gonna happen up to that point. Kinda like:

Like: Ok, let's try to lockpick the prison door. Failed.
Ok, let's try brute force. Dang, can't do enough damage.
Ok, let's try whether we can find the key (some guard is carrying that around for sure -- as the game world is "consistent" enough to keep in mind that locked doors have keys somebody eventually has to use).
Ok, now I have found the key, it's in the main guard's pockets. Let's try to pickpocket him. Check failed.
Oh shit, now I'm being caught, have no money to bribe the guy and go to prison and have to get out of that myself now ... might have better tried a couple spells or perhaps even explosive stuff on the lock/door first even though that means risking injuring or even killing the prisoner.
But even then, the quest wouldn't be complete, as I have to get that guy somehow out of the prison unnoticed... [more branching stuff and moment to moment decision making to follow]
It's no wonder that people of Arkane Studios (current and former) more recent were gushing all over the Twittersphere over BG3.

That said, I wouldn't ever want IE-likes to go away or replaced by anything else entirelly, bring on PoE3 plz. Just as back then with Ultima vs Baldur's Gate: Variety is the spice of life. And: By concentrating on more static environments and scripts as opposed to systems, IE-likes allow designers to craft a more guided experience, where every path and action you take has a fully fleshed-out outcome (well, ideally) handcrafted for you. If Larian would eventually go *all the way* with what they are trying to do, when everything truly clicks, it's magic and can be pretty close to the improvisation found at the tabletop. However, completely silly, undpredictable and even broken things are bound to happen here and there as chaos is the name of systems allowed to interact with one another's game.

It's hard for me to say which game I strictly prefer. They are both superb games that I'm lucky I had the chance to play. I think that each does some things better than the other. However, even in each individual category, there isn't always a clear winner. It's more like, within X category, WotR is best at Y and BG3 at Z.

In discussing details of plot and character for both games, I will speak in general terms that are hopefully sufficiently vague to not require spoiler tags.

WotR raised my expectations for the genre of games descending from the original Baldur's Gate. BG1 and its immediate descendants have decades of nostalgia on their side. In one sense, nothing can ever compete with that nostalgia. But WotR made me feel like modern attempts at this genre can actually achieve more and be better than the games that inspired them. The wish-fulfilment was better at fulfilling my wishes. And the best-written companions had layers of complexity beyond what I remembered from my favourite Infinity Engine companions.

BG3 also raised my expectations, but along different axes than WotR: chiefly in terms of music, cinematic graphics, and reactive gameplay. That's not to say that it didn't also do well in other areas - but WotR had already raised my expectations in those areas.

Music: Both games have excellent soundtracks. That being said, the use of motifs in BG3's soundtrack is outstanding. In my admittedly limited musical experience, it can honestly be compared to the use of motifs in the Lord of the Rings soundtracks. The climax of Raphael's theme was impeccable. I also loved the changing meaning of the Song of Balduran as the game progressed.

Gameplay: In some ways, I can do much more in WotR. There are more abilities, more spell levels, etc. I can cast dispel magic! Mythic powers give a huge level of choice, both at the RP level and the gameplay level. However, I think that, before BG3, I was accustomed to RPGs having plenty of unnecessary fights. It's hardly something unique to WotR that there are plenty of fights that don't linger in the memory and feel more like filler than an epic contest. In WotR, there were some extremely difficult fights, but also plenty of combat where I easily wiped the floor with my enemies. In BG3, pretty much every fight feels uniquely handcrafted. I really have to take care to use every last resource as best I can. Further, while both games offer non-combat ways to resolve some fights, overall BG3 seems to have many more situations that can be handled without fighting, or handled in some other way than strictly bringing the opponent's HP to 0 - and the game will mostly succeed at proceeding onwards, recognising that you addressed the challenge in some way or another. At the gameplay level, therefore, BG3 ended up feeling more reactive and impactful to me. This did fall away somewhat in Act 3. It felt very noticeable when, in Act 3, I suddenly didn't have the same level of freedom to jump "off the rails," confident that BG3 would catch me.

Companions: Both games have excellent companions / party members, of whom some seem like clear writers' favourites (getting a lot more content / reactivity than others). I think that the BG3 companions who feel exceptionally involved with the plot, like Lae'zel and Shadowheart, feel more central to BG3 than, frankly, any of the companions from WotR. I enjoyed all the BG3 companions, with the exception of Gale (who just didn't gel with me in my first playthrough). Gale aside, from all the other companions I was impressed by the development of the ones who undergo a lot of change, and perfectly happy with the ones who are more static exemplars of particular feelings and principles. For WotR, I found it refreshing that not all evil party members can be "redeemed." And even if none of them are as central to the game's plot as the BG3 companions, they still mattered to me and the character I was playing very much. WotR also takes place over a longer period of time. In most cases, I felt like I got to know the WotR companions better and in a wider variety of circumstances. Favourites for me from WotR are Daeran, Ember, Seelah, and Lann, while from BG3 I think I like Wyll, Karlach, and Lae'zel the most (but I think Astarion might be the best-written).

Non-companion characters: Both games also have some great characters who don't join your party as regular companions. In some ways, Irabeth and Anevia remind me of Isobel and Aylin: two couples who I want to support through everything they face, then watch them ride off into the sunset. In both cases, depending on player choice, they can have some very different outcomes. Of the non-party characters, probably the Emperor made the strongest impact on me in BG3. I feel like, until almost the very end, Larian did a wonderful job balancing the many ways in which this character can be interpreted. In WotR, where I took the Angel mythic path, probably Queen Galfrey (who counts in the non-party category for me) and the Hand of the Inheritor had the greatest impact. Galfrey's motives (and role/actions/talents) can be debated to a somewhat similar extent to the Emperor, but I think she is a less interesting character overall. The Hand of the Inheritor was a great motivator in my game, but again I wouldn't say is a massively complex character. Overall, BG3 wins this category for me, almost entirely because the Emperor's writing is so good.

Romances: I was lucky enough to have my PC fall for a character with tons of content in WotR (Daeran), but my BG3 PC didn't fall for BG3's closest analogue (in my opinion, Astarion; instead, she romanced Wyll). It was a real "boot's on the other foot now" experience. Playing WotR, I thought to myself "oh wow, the ladies romancing Lann are getting waaaaaay less content than I am with Daeran," and now I'm one of the players getting less content in BG3. WotR's Daeran is a complex, multi-layered character whose first impressions hide so much of what's really there. I'd never felt pandered to by any RPG like I felt pandered to with such a well-written character actively pursuing my PC. And replaying WotR, it's possible to pick up on so many elements of Daeran's character that were easy to miss first time, giving me added admiration for his writing. Although Daeran and Astarion are different in tons of ways, Astarion does seem to be the closest direct analogue. And I also missed some of Astarion's sympathetic qualities in the first ~40% of my first playthrough (mostly due to doing heroic things he didn't like, so being locked out of his higher-approval content). The replay bonus for his character is fantastic as well. It's kinda funny that, mirroring the content discrepancy, I've spent more time talking about Astarion in this paragraph than Wyll. For Wyll, I found the romance felt very much like a classic fairytale and I'm very happy with how it turned out.

Overall Story: BG3 has made me think a lot about memory, identity, freedom, survival, and revenge. I think that some of the themes are exceptionally well-explored, and in a lot of the cases the writing doesn't insist that we reach a particular conclusion, which I think was wise. Leaves us with plenty to discuss. I did find the very end of BG3 to be a bit of a damp squib, however. Certain options being closed off at the end felt quite artificial and forced, a sudden restriction of the freedom that I had mostly been enjoying up to that point. By contrast, I think that several themes in WotR were explored with less finesse, but the ending was extremely satisfying. WotR has extensive epilogue slides to show the results of our choices for all our party members plus the world at large. WotR's story also is definitely stronger at wish fulfilment. There are plenty of situations in WotR where you might say "hmmm, I'm not sure if this wish should be fulfilled..." But it's your choice whether to play a character who would do such a thing, much like the worst actions of the Dark Urge are (mostly) our choice. (I will say that the Durge's one unavoidable sin during the BG3 story was, in my view, a good writing choice and made the evil feel "real" to me.) At the very end, I did not feel that BG3 fulfilled the fantasy it offered me like WotR did. Rather, it undercut it. My WotR character could be consistent and faithful to her ideals until the very end, while my BG3 character could not. And several choices that I expected to be important in BG3 turned out not to be. If BG3 had ended with the conclusion of the Durge plot, it would've been a different matter. *That* fulfilled the central fantasy offered by the Durge story. But the conclusion of BG3 overall undercut some of what I felt were the story's underlying principles. To conclude, I feel that BG3 did a better job of exploring interesting themes, while WotR's story did a better job of successfully fulfilling the promise that its story offered the player.

Probably much more can be said, but I'll leave it there for now. In conclusion, to repeat, they are both excellent games.