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

Haha, was going the write the exact same; PRECISELY. While Pathfinder was far from a perfect game, wasn't at all <tedious> to me. Base game already pretty great, and a few great mods fixed so many issues I had.
Man Im really PUMPED for WotR. Tons of new class builds Id like to try out...
As for BG3...I just dont feel the appeal anymore...since I dont like the few playable NPCs with have, and our own hero has NOTHING special, no great story going for it. And were getting what, max 3 more companions? ...and a <couple> more classes it seems?
Classic case of : Cinematics/Graphics >> Content??

I've been playing PK. ~170h so far, first playthrough, doing the end chapter rn. I first tried this game 3 years ago when it was first released then gave up cause I wasn't able to cope with the difficulty (trust me, this is saying something, coming from me). I only gave it a second try recently also because I was hyped by WotR. Only playing on normal (Challenging, to be precise, but with "normal" enemy stats) and I've been enjoying it. A lot, in fact. A shame the ending portion is such bullcrap that killed essentially 95% of my enjoyment and 40% of my motivation to replay the game, despite all the build ideas I've been having and thought I'd like to try. I'm actually redoing the entire ending section a second time, cause I'm not satisfied with the fact that I ran out of patience and lowered the difficulty to Story mode just to get through the ending portion in a "no longer caring what happens anymore" kind of mood.

How does it compare to DOS2? Very different. To Deadfire? More similar, but PK is more brutal, has more complex mechanics, awkward pacing, with a hit-or-miss "kingdom management" thing. Also, this is only my 1st playthrough and my party doesn't have a dedicated spellcaster, but I find PK is more "brawn" oriented - as in, it favors physical combat over magic. PoE is more balanced between brawn and brain. I may do another playthrough with a dedicated spellcaster and may change my mind, though.

Lol i completely agree man the NPCS in BG3 are just way to politically correct and woke for me. Larain need to re-invent the wheel with this crap they have produced. They need a complete over-haul 100% i completely see where you are coming from.

So do you reccomned i play Kingmaker or not? Maybe i just save myself for WOTR? To get a full new raw experience or should i play Kingmaker?

I still legit don't know where this woke talk is even coming from, nor why a couple of posters keep trying to rail the conversation back towards that topic after a mod legit told everyone to stop. It's almost like this thread was made for an entirely different purpose, because literally everyone who has played the WotR beta would argue that the actual comparison of where each game lies on that scale is actually the opposite.

To continue on the whole 'BG3 isn't really representing the sheer scale of the world it's taking place in yet' topic, you can see this in the companions. Out of the five known companions, we have...

1 Half Elf
2 Humans
1 Elf
1 Githyanki

Among the known datamined companions, we have...

1 Tiefling
1 Human
1 Halfling
(One of the most requested NPCs to be turned into a companion is another Elf. A buff one, but still an elf.)

WotR in comparison has...

2 Humans
2 Mongrelmen (mutually exclusive choice, in reality you only really get one in your party)
1 Aasimar
1 Tiefling
1 Kitsune
1 Dwarf
1 Gnome
1 Half-Elf
1 Elf
1 Succubus

More pillars than DOS. They even have both a turn based and real time mode.

Yes. Best RPG in recent years.
No idea why people have problem with the Kingdom Management, its rather easy.

Just don't forget that you have a (generous) time limit for main quests so after chapter 1 it might be best to do them early/first and save side missions for later.

I agree that Kingmaker is worth playing. It's a fun game and I actually quite like the kingdom management. It can be awkward early on before you know what you're doing with it, but once you've got your head around it and have a good number of advisor slots filled, it's not really that difficult, though I can totally understand why some people don't really click with it. However, I think that the game would be much lesser were it not for the kingdom management aspect. I love that the game puts as much emphasis as it does on running the kingdom and developing it. The story is unmistakeably about being a ruler, and all the main quests and such revolve around that to some extent. They're almost all things you get involved in specifically because you're a ruler and you have to deal with them to care for your nation. The main quest itself is inextricably tied to the fact that you are in charge and have to deal with the slings and arrows of ruling. I think that without kingdom management as a thing to engage with, it would be too easy to feel like you're less of a ruler and more of an errand runner.

As for comparing WotR with BG3, I think that it's a fair comparison to make, fairer that Solasta and BG3 even, since I think these games are both on the same scale. And I for one am looking forward to WotR way more than BG3. I don't think BG3 is bad, but it definitely appeals to me way less. This is my purely subjective opinion, but looking at them both, there is nothing in BG3 that I think is going to be better than WotR. Even the graphics, while they went in different directions I feel like WotR looks more interesting and engaging overall than BG3. I know it's not entirely fair to judge given how far from release BG3 is, but at this point, while I look forward to full release, I'm not convinced that I'll actually complete it. Where that is not a worry at all for WotR.

If it's to know another decent cRPG, to get yourself familiar with the rule set, maybe to appreciate WotR even more because it sounds like WotR is much better, then sure. To avoid that possibility of playing WotR first then when you try to play PK you realize that you just can't get into it because it's "inferior". AFAIK this and WotR are two separate stories so no worries here (though WotR does get referenced in a kingdom event which implies these two games take place at the same time). Just take a bit of caution with you, cause this game can be pretty brutal. It has a tendency to be really great one moment just to hit you in the face hard right after. This is based on my personal experience as well as what many have said in their feedback. Take it slow, learn stuff, be patient (I'm assuming you're not a 3.5e expert who knows the rules inside out) and this game can be really fun. It got quite a few things right in terms of "design spirit" which should make you hopeful about the sequel.

On that note, to be fair PF:WoTR has a 6-man-party so it´s logical that they have more companions and are more varied, but also you can say that it was a bg3 design choice to do so.

As a D&D fan I found the world presentation in BG3 is adequate, you have continuous references to the lore, other campaigns of Wotc, and some inside jokes, so I found it familiar and cozy.
But I do not know if for people that are not interested in D&D or do not have previous knowledge of the setting; the worldbuilding makes the players invested enough in the world of bg3.



Oh yeah, definitely, it´s a very good CRPG, but it´s somewhat hard and unforgiven, mostly because they do not explain very well basic mechanics; and has a steep learning curve in harder difficulties. Think dark souls Mets nwn2.
Many people like it, some do not. I kinda like the kingdom management, I like strategy games, but there is an option to turn it off/automatic mode if it´s not up to your tastes.

That said, I agree with @Saito Hikari that said Wotr is superior to the previous game. They take the first game's foundation and built upon it to make it better. Kingmaker has some complicated mechanics ( it´s based on pathfinder tabletop, very faithfully) but they have little on the tutorial side.
WOTR makes better work explaining the game mechanics and it´s definitely more newbie-friendly.
My recommendation? unless you have previous knowledge of the pathfinder tabletop or you are patient about getting your ass handed in a game every hour or so; start with WOTR, the beta is on, and the game comes in September the 2th. They have better tutorials.
Once you master the game mechanics, definitely try kingmaker. The base game and the two stand-alone expansions are fun to play and have ties to the main campaign. The third expansion adds yet another companion(s) and questline to the main campaign, one of my favorites.

...Or just try kingmaker, after 3 years there are plenty of guides, or ask for advice in the discord or the owlcats forum. There are nice people there.


Another poster @TrytoHanding stated that the game ís very battle-oriented and brutal and yeah, it is depending on your difficulty options, but with options to roleplay in the middle, plenty of dialogues, exploration, and high skill usage. I do not know about the characterization that the game is very warrior-oriented. I finished once the game with a party of 5 bards just because.
You can build your party around might or magic, or mixed, all very powerful. As in many games and tabletops, magic-users may reach their full potential a little later, but when they do...let´s say there are one-shotting, enemy-wiping, deadly magic combos. And you still need magic to buff your party, protect them against enemies´ debuffs and kill some enemies that are impervious to physical attacks.

i learn the rules from pathfinder kingmaker myself before going to wrath of the righteous. both has it's magic feeling for me. i love the characters in kingmaker. as for wrath, it's more of a dark grittier games. in terms of gameplay i would say wrath of the righteous is really what i enjoyed most especially with the mythic powers.

and the musical score is really meant for angel mythic paths i would say. if anyone decide to play wrath, i would suggest hold on till official release in september and choose the angel mythic paths. it was a truly heroic and the feeling of righteous in me (the musical score made it so epic).

edit
basically back on topic regarding the comparison to BG3 i would say.. Larian has the technology and resource (their game engine, visuals, verticality, bigger budget, AAA), if these were given to Owlcat games that will be really awesome. i only completed BG3 EA once and shelved it already. compared to playing wrath of righteous, that keep making me replaying for many playthroughs with wrath of the righteous. also latest beta seems to impressed me how much visuals has been improved as well from beta2 to beta3.

I think the comparisons and recommendations between Kingmaker and WotR are going to end up being the same as DOS1 and DOS2.

If you can only play one, pick the second game. Then pick up the first game afterwards if you are interested in seeing how everything started, and to compare and contrast the two games.

In the case of Kingmaker VS WotR, Kingmaker's gameplay pacing is basically main story -> downtime/exploration phase -> next chapter main story -> etc throughout most of the game. It has a somewhat open world structure too. WotR is a much more linear game with almost no downtime between each story beat, and also features a lot more proper dungeons and miniboss encounters as a result. Though while it is more linear and the game is said to be shorter overall, it also has more divergent path choices compared to Kingmaker.

Yeah, also they improved the dialogues, NPCs and the writing and voice acting overall, being a more story-driven game than the Kingmaker campaign; with more roleplaying options and unique dialogues for race, class, alignment and path, at least I am enjoying it.


I forgot: in Wotr you technically do not have 5 companions in your party plus your MC, you have 5, a very talkative weapon (Finnean even interjects in banters) and optionally

Not only was P:Km NOT tedious at all and quite fun to play, since we're comparing, for me D:OS was the poster-child game for tediousness and boredom.

This review is spot on. I'm also used to playing CRPGs on the highest difficulty settings and the beginning of Kingmaker on Hard, which is not even the highest difficulty setting, must've been the hardest game I've ever played. After level 5 or so my build started to get broken, so the rest of the game was relatively easy.

I'd say that because of the stat bloat Kingmaker is not a game that encourages experimentation, since even on Normal a non-optimized character will suffer. A shame considering the endless possibilites you have.

Other than that, the game is too long clocking close to 200 hours if you want to try to do everything (which I always do), which kinda undermines replayability as well. If all this time was spent on quests and combat it'd be cool, but dozens of hours were spent in main quest downtimes and kingdom management, which I thought was boring.
Still, for CRPG fans is a must play, there is too much good stuff in there. @teclis should definitely check it out and play at least (and most likely only) once.

Even loving PFKM, which I do a lot, it's easily one of the best games I've played in years. The later acts, and having to spend so much time in the kingdom management are painful. I replayed a few times because builds are amazing, but only after I got mods to fix the management, make it simpler, so I could enjoy the story and explore more.

And I remember having to literally abandon my first try when reaching Act 2 because the difficulty is over the top for any new player. Like. I was playing on normal, had no many clues about builds, etc, and was being massacred, especially because the game likes to throw dozens of enemies against you all the time, and not actually give any real placement, or strategy on the field, etc. All you have to do is buff before going to battle and prepare skills to counter what is coming. And as said above, the last part of the game is simply brutal if you're not a maniac for rules, micromanagement, know every move an enemy can do, etc. And that's even on normal difficulty. The last boss I gave up and went to story mod in my first time finishing the game even with good builds, because I just got frustrated with how many enemies kept coming and how strong even minions were.

In this, DOS2 and now BG3 is so superior, you can plan before starting a battle, strategically put characters in specific places to take advantage, control enemies, cut their movements by blocking their passage to reach you using the scenery, objects, the number of ways to approach even hardest enemies or numerous ones are amazing. As in DOS2, I have so much more fun in combat that I can't stop playing.

I won't talk about the story or characters anymore, since it's controversial and one game is finished and the other doesn't even have full ACT yet. But gameplay-wise, BG3 is far superior and fun just like DOS2 was for me.

This as a reminder. I am sorry for old posts. Simply lets agree UNKNOWN BG3 release date though I still guess this. I can not find any single reliable release date for BG3 anywhere. I know Pathfinder 2 will be released in September 2021.

However what I still find Sven Larian said there is coming light in the tunnel things are getting slowly done. Well so I do not believe BG3 postponed to year 2024 release date.

I have raged at a dumpsterfire that is Kingmaker's campaign enough times, to feel like I am repeating myself too much.

Snide comment, your builds probably weren't that good if you couldln't beat the last boss without going to the easiest difficulty. I mean, insane, or whatever it's called, is easily the most artificially hard difficulty i've ever faced in any game ever, for the first 20-30 or so hours the game literally plays against you and the only way to advance is RNG, but everything is still doable and everything still turns into a cakewalk (with proper managament) at higher levels. I can't imagine anything that could get through that (a good build) not being able to get through normal difficulty.

I do agree the gameplay is not all that accessible, though. But then again, as far as i'm concerned, it's not that bad of a trade considering how many things you can do in that game.

Pathfinder 1 was no success game (well not complete failure either more like average game) or AAA game though yes I also played Pathfinder 1. Swarmed with bugs, below mediocre graphics and effects well and then to open world feeling (I don´t like Skyrime to sandbox for me) for me with annoying fast travel map.

Many also complained to hard challenge though personally that was not the issue I quit Pathfider1 (did not find it to hard) and never finished it and it felt lackluster to me much like Solasta does for me. Well though Solasta annoys me with other ways (example Solasta is filled with annoying riddles), but you can read that in the Solasta thred.

Based on how Pathfinder 1 was I would not buy Pathfinder 2, but to my understanding Pathfinder 2 should hopefully be clearly better. Well though I think I wait for full release Pathfinder 2 professional reviews before making any decision to possible buy it.

Well and I do finish playing through some games like example Pillars of Eternity 1.

How the fuck Kingmaker wasn't a success? It sold around 2 million copies, considering the game was sold at 40 dollars, that's US$ 80 million in revenue for a game that cost 900k to make.