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

I prepurchased BG3 and am planning to purchase Pathfinder WOtR; I think both are great games. I like to wait until games are full release before playing them, but I played BG3 for a few minutes.
The graphics were extremely impressive and the game has an epic feel. I'm looking forward to playing it as Paladin.
Hopefully, there are plenty of playing options, so players aren't forced into playing against their own character. In NWN-Hordes of the Underdark, I enjoyed dissing the mind flayers, even though they became enemies instead of tenuous allies at the end. There can be consequences in a game for a decision, but being railroaded into decisions you don't like isn't fun. Hoping as a Paladin I will have the player options to completely reject the demon elements offers. If that means the game is harder because of that, that is great -- just a better challenge. Also, hoping I get a chance to kill Astoralon.

I'm probably halfway through Pathfinder Kingmaker. It is a really good game. I couldn't get into POE or even Divine Divinity, but Pathfinder felt like I was playing a new Baldur's Gate with much better graphics (a game that matches my best nostalgia inflated memories of BG). The kingdom management portion is just ok, but the game is still great. However, when BG 1 & 2 came out, they had an awe factor compared to other games of their time, and Larian's Baldur's Gate 3 replicates that feeling today. I am excited that Pathfinder Wrath is switching to incorporating a Heroes of Might and Magic army building element rather than a sim-kingdom element. I think it will be much better than Pathfinder Kingmaker.

I predict both Pathfinder Wrath and BG3 will be A++ titles, and my favorite 2 games of their era.

As far as the romance type stuff, I hope there is an option in BG3 to turn all that off. I'm happily married to the woman of my dreams, and have no interest in such fantasies. There's probably a lot of players like me.

Please at least make a rudimentary attempt to understand what I say before responding. Things like covering all races and classes in the PHb is fundamental to the game, and that is exactly what *should* be covered within even a limited budget, which is exactly what the Pathfinder games do.

No I do not agree and that is you personal opinion. I am not expert on what is in real Pathfinder rules. That said I suspect strongly those mythic powers that are much more powerful then normal spell are not in real Pathfinder Dnd rules. Well and what has controlling an army like in Heroes 3 to do with Pathdfinder? They have wasted money on things that should not be in the game.

They could stick to 2 subclasses for every class and Cleric has 3 Domains to choose from in BG3 so far that has been the trend in Early Access.

Well and they will not add all subclasses to full release BG3 that I am confident of. All base classes from PHB
so yes Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Paladin and Sorceror will be added to BG3 full release if not before that.
Likely all races from PHB will be added to BG3.
Well and regarding my "threat" I would not start posting that please do not add the base classes from PHB I consider them important to be in the game at least in some form if not all subclasses.

Here are some problems example some spells like example Wish is so unclear that many times GM and players do not agree on what Wish is limited on unless GM bans that spell or say from beginning Wish can only do this can you understand it? That is not the only problem, but one easy example that can be a problem to implement into a computer game.
Now do I believe they add more sub classes and races from PHB to BG3? Yes likely, but all of them do not believe that regarding sub classes.
I do not see adding more sub classes more important then adding multiplayer cooperative play.

Well and adding any race, class or subclass outside from PHB I am against it. It is enough I had to read Players Handbook from DnD 5th edition for this game.

If you mean Pathfinder Kingmaker as an example, then I'd rather Larian doesn't follow that. Because several of the classes were bugged, or not working properly. It's like the wizard in BG3 currently, or like some of the class features that you can see on character creation but are not implemented yet. Except in PK that was not in EA, that was on release. Not having played Pathfinder pnp, I didn't know how all things were supposed to be working, so it felt like the developers left "trap choices" for new players in the game. Like spell school specialization universal, when there were no universal spells in the game, and no manual where you could check that. And that was still in the game, last I checked. I should not have to guess as a player whether a class feature even does something in the game.

It is true BG3 have been to far from real Dnd rules specially in the beginning, However progress has been done. Example no longer does food heal in BG3 though you need food for resting. Well and now you can not jump from enemy without causing attack of opportunity. You can instead use disengage, but then you forfeit the chance to attack enemy. Well and then now strength is really required to push a dex based Rogues can not do that well and some heavy opponents like example Dragon can not be pushed. Rogue backstabbing does not anymore give advantage and good Rogues was to good in BG3 they should not be some S Tier class. AI is smarter after patch 5. Many scenes that in early stage had "we have not yet created this video trailer" has now been added.

Yes it has been long time since a class was introduced a Druid, but I believe patch 6 will have at least one more base class released and perhaps more example a race.

Thanks for this message ! You summarised very well many of my feelings and expressed them far more better that I did on the Larian/BG3 discord !

I'm going to add that the Pathfinder games go a step further in that the cRPGs are adaptations of actual tabletop modules of the same names. So not only are they trying to cover as much as possible in regards to races and classes, the entire damn setting of the module and plot is getting covered too. Though modules are generally barebones in regards to having an actual cohesive plot, so they're still filling in a lot of blanks in the writing department.

BG3 in comparison is an original work in the DnD universe.

I believe you compare that BG3 is Forgotten Realms the most popular Dnd Universe. Example Solasta is Badlands less popular then Forgotten Realms.

BG1 and BG2 were both Forgotten Realms world.

Pathfinder 2 does it wrong. No multiplayer and they have stuff that do not belong to Dnd like
A. Mythic spells and abilities? Really I doubt that exist in Pathfinder Pen and Paper.
B. You can control an army like in Heroes strategy games. I am sorry but this was not going to be a strategy game.
C. The world is less popular then Forgotten Realms Dnd.

Plenty of Mythic spells in the MANY Pathfinder PnP plugins.

That is extra book and not the CORE Pathfinder book. I hate it.

Same as in BG3 i only want Players Hand book and not some extra.

The only exception to that is a book with Monsters and sure books with adventurers.

IF I would have GM with DnD 5 I would say you only PHB and NOT all subclasses!
I would say all race, class from PHB is ok but NO not all subclasses!
Why?
I want also PvP 4 player vs 4 player...
Pvp and PvE.

No Invisibility spells or wish Spells...
Why not Invisibility? Because in PVP if 4 player you Invisibility vs 4 player who are not Invisibility then it then Invisibility player win.
Some monster in PvE true do find even if you are Invisibility...
Well and I would say max level is 12. Start from level 1 and very slowly get exp. Well not that it will get much exp to get to level 4 but after that get more slowy since you need much more exp to get to next level. Well and I would not give much exp no extra exp from something... you did to kill monsters or players (PvP) to get exp.

If only give exp from kill monsters and players then is very slow to get to level 12 that I want as max level. Of course I would NOT send some super monster vs 4 players that are level 12 or less. I dont want to be evil GM and send some super monster that is good for level 15-20 vs a lowly level 4 players that are level 8.

The players should have some chance... Ok maybe you good have some super monster true but then players much not fight it: GM tell you can see from long a HUGE DRAGON but right now Dragon have not seen you... then players can try do do so they do not fight it.

Hey. I wasn't talking to you. You missed my entire point and twisted it into something else anyway, but you do you.

Now I understand why some of the people more in favor of Larianisms get ticked off at purists, because lo and behold, we finally have an actual purist here. Either way, you're kinda barking up the wrong tree, derailing a thread comparing two cRPGs over semantics about what should or shouldn't be considered official material for the sake of adapting mechanics into these games.

I will judge both games as and when I have played both games in the state they are supposed to be played and judged in (i.e. full release).
Thus PWotR next month and BG3 as and when it is released fully.

Until then there are pointless comparisons between a Beta and an EA Alpha.

As for SP vs MP, sheeesh. I played quite a lot of SP & MP BG1 &2, both were great and having played BG3 MP I can confirm it is a real blast and I am very grateful it is having decent attention. SP is like reading a book, it's my solo experience, my world. MP is obviously more like a board game with your friends. Both can be enjoyed and one is no better than the other, just more appropriate to one's preference at any given moment.

The BG and later, NWM series has always had MP, this should not even be a discussion point.
Not including day and night cycle as a result however totally should, because that decision is just daft.

"Owlcat are based in Poland and arent necessarily all about diversity and gender neutral crap like Larian is. I think Larain have gone waaaayyyyy to far with this stuff and Owlcat have completely tuned it down eg Larian has gone woke and Owlcat are not woke."

I was really hoping you may be able provide an example (or more!) of them going woke. Having played through most of the EA content, I have to say I was very glad to see there wasn't really any of the idealogical stuff you mentioned but perhaps I missed some examples?

I wish i could but one of the mods has already said on this thread they will ban anyone who tells the truth about this. This is the age of censorship we have to bend the knee to the woke mob and we are not allowed to say anything that contradicts their narrative.

You should be-careful what truth you tell aswell or they will ban you.

just look at the OP's previous posts in this thread. You'll see his..."arguments" for why this game is "woke". They're..ah..interesting.

Well, given the centrality of the Forgotten Realms to D&D over many decades, I could argue that the Forgotten Realms is itself a module, a very non-barebones and gigantic module.

As a reminder, the actual warning was as quoted (emphasis mine):


Don't go there and there won't be problems.

Yes indeed I am happy many times to be person that is traditional that no want everything change and consider all changes to be good.
Let not go offtopic politics with that logic however in DnD talk see below.

However in Elves are not Elves thread
RagnarokCzD that have same as your Avatar picture wanted REALLY that Elves should be FAT and have BEARDS perhaps not every Elf, but there should be many such Elves.
Of course I am against it. Perhaps slightly little bit fat is possible for some old Mage Elf, but that would indeed be very rare. Elves are different from humans and I am not going to complain if I see fat humans in Baldurs Gate city.
I am not against everything NEW.

I did like DnD 3.5 , Pathfinder is fairly ok without Mythic Spells.
DnD 4th I did not like they removed lots of dice rolls and made it very difficult rules.
Wizards of Coast got the feedback and DND 5th again have the dice rolls and more simple to play and learn rules then Dnd 4th and less time sink also since more simple.
DnD 5th edition is fine.

Let me explain why I am against Mythics Spells in DnD and Pathfinder 2?
A. They are to powerful. Does not make much sense to use much spells from CORE book so much at least since when Mythic spells are available since they Mythic spells are so powerful.
B. Pathfinder is like Dnd 3.75 little bit more stuff then DnD 3.5. With Mythic it becomes even more difficult not necessary for me but for someone that have
do not know Dnd rules really. Even youtuber Wolfheart mentioned that he find Pathfinder 2 rules sometimes a bit to overwhelming to much to understand and to much choices.
C. One friend of mine (not my brother he knows Dnd rules well) does not like if learning curve is tough and there is lots of information to choose from in a game.

It is subjective taste. I have always liked more the journey being low-medium level and not like level 20 and on top of that Mythic Spells super powerful almost like a demigod. If talking about MMO:S then my logic is quite the opposite, but this whas about DnD and not a MMO game.

Well and finally when they skipped adding Multiplayer to Pathfinder 2 they added that you can control a freaking army and play Pathfinder 2 as a strategy game.
What has that controlling an army and playing a strategy game with armies to do with DnD? Nothing.

Fair enough that you don't like that stuff, you're entitled to your own tastes. For me I don't like multiplayer and genuinely, the mention of multiplayer in the description turned me HARD away from the idea of picking up Neverwinter Nights when I was looking back at old crpgs. However I think you're overstating things to say that WotR "does it wrong". For one thing, the only "right" way for any creative endeavor is the way that works at the time for the occasion. Also, what is the "it" that Pathfinder is doing wrong? It's not trying to be Baldur's Gate. It's trying to expand and be its own thing within the genre that Baldur's Gate created. There's room for more stuff in the genre, same as how there's a boatload of variations within every other genre of games.

Regarding your feelings about Mythic spells, I think that in general you're right that if they were just a part of any old D&D/Pathfinder game then they probably would feel out of place. But WotR is a campaign specifically built around mythic paths and the abilities they grant. It's a game made for a different level of play. I imagine it's the same as in tabletop, they're a resource for those who want to experience a different, higher level of play than the default. They're not going to be good for every campaign, but if the campaign is constructed with those mythic spells in mind, then they can create a very fun new experience. Yet even then, it's an experience that some people, like you, aren't going to be interested in. WotR is a game that's ABOUT your character becoming a demigod. There is without question room for a game like that in the genre. It's not going to be for you, but it's going to be for a lot of other people, and those people aren't going to be wrong for liking it. Same goes for the army command feature. They're experimenting with integrating different kinds of gameplay and seeing what that creates. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. It will definitely work for some people more than others.

It is your taste only. I don't give a shit about people who only want single play unless you do it so great as Witcher 3 that had sold over 35 million copies and includes all adult content as it should be! I fully agree I agree with Kana... that Withcer 3 is one of the best single player games ever made! Well and then Solasta and Owlcat and Pillars of Eternity always brag and lie it is like old Baldurs Gate games. I sure remember when Pathfinder 1 was released they bragged about game being like BG1. Total bullshit! BG1 and BG2 and BG3 have multiplayer! Witcher 3 is the king of fantasy single player games over 35 million sold and so much adult content I don't even need to use some nasty mod like I did with Skyrim! Well Witcher 3 over 35 million sold and Pathfinder games will never achieve that! They even have started a TV serie based on Witcher games or books that is still being made more and not cancelled. Witcher 3 is so nasty so lol SerraSerra could not play it if want to keep that kind of ideology. Apparently over 35 million players that bought Witcher 3 did not fully agree with SerraSerra at least on amount of adult content in games. On top of that Witcher 3 has truly great graphics specially for being slightly old game now though can get expansions. Well and Witcher 3 has really many settings you can adjust graphics so even if you don't have very high end computer you can make it good looking. Example I have Nvidia 1070 Titanium 8 GB DDR5 and that card is not great compared to top end modern graphic cards nowadays. Well and certainly good enough since my max resolution for monitor is FULL HD I can tell that Witcher 3 runs great on my computer and looks light years better graphics then example Solasta. My cpu? Amd Ryzen 5 2600 4.2 GHZ in turbo mode 6 cores 12 threads. RAM 16 GB DDR4 3200 Cl 16. Oh and Witcher 3 runs great though I only run with FULL HD resolution due ro my monitor. Power source bad one can cause problems in long run so my power is Seasonic 650 W GOLD 🥇 standard! The only standard better then GOLD is PLATINUM for power sources for normal gamers. What Intel? Todays best AMD Ryzen better then mine are Elite! Well and my CPU is not bad for gaming.