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

i dont understand this fear of options, you can just click the default class and even let the game build your character for you. It's like knowing you love chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream but refusing to go to an ice cream store that sells chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream AND 100 other flavours because they sell those other flavours.

I like having options, but when you have ~154 different subclasses all with unique abilities, this is a huge burden on development to get everything implemented. And imo they failed on release, because many subclasses are bugged or have abilities that just aren't implemented right now.
i.e.: got my blood kineticist to level 11, vampiric infusion doesn't work. and blood blast also isn't ingame even though you're supposed to get it.

Yeah, I'm sure it was a very difficult decision to take.

Confirmation bias is an helluva drug.

I'm used to the Pathfinder craziness, but I can see how the Pathfinder Class system can be particularly daunting for newcomers because it forces A LOT of choices immediately into the moment of character creation. You're basically asked to specialize before you even had a chance to play and get to know the game. From a meta standpoint too - knowing the game can be 50-100+ hours adds on to that analysis by paralysis.

A part of this is a bit of a poor user experience design by Owlcat in the character creator - a lot of the classes are super easy to understand if you realized that they are actually Hybrid Classes (named per PnP) of the Core Classes - i.e. Skald = Bard + Barbarian, Bloodrager = Sorcerer + Barbarian, Shaman = Oracle + Witch, etc. Instead you're given a massive list of class names, a lot of which aren't really descriptive - i.e. what's the difference between Witch / Oracle/ Shaman in just the name? The fluff text they give each class is also a bit too flowery and not focused enough on practical facts.

The Archetype system is also particularly tough on newer players because core abilities can actually be removed if you choose particular Archetypes (and it's not universal). Take the Divine Hunter (Paladin) for example. Sounds great for Paladin archers - bonus feats and all, but if you don't read ahead, you might miss that you lose out on arguably the most powerful Paladin ability in the game (Mark of Justice).

All of this, combined with the understanding that 150+ classes can't possibly be all balanced (and rarely do people want to pick a weak class/archetype to start), probably makes it hard for newer players to even get out of character creation.


This is something D&D 5E have fixed in multiple regards, despite all the issues I have with its simplicity. For many classes (outside of a few thematic ones) the "subclass choice" is moved a few levels back (level 2, level 3), so you have had a chance to at least playtest a bit. Also by making sure that Subclasses only ADD, never subtract, you're less worried about picking the "wrong class". Lastly - all subclasses of the same class in 5e get their features at the same level - so it's much easier to compare and contrast.


With that said, I'm having a blast with WoTR and I think you guys should definitely try it out. If character creation is bothering you, honestly just ignore the Archetype and play a core class you're familiar with from BG3 (which all exist in its 3.75 PF version).

Options make a game replayable. I admit, it's a lot of options, and I myself have felt the learning curve as I am not familiar with all the subclasses, but part of the fun is learning the nuances of different classes through playing them.

I don't understand the fear of options either. Like it was said, it's like flavors of ice cream. Just pick one, try it out, see what it tastes like, don't like it, try another... Or just go with a class you know you like. Like wizard, play a normal wizard. Why should a game limit options because some don't like options? It's like a pizza place serving only cheese and sausage and nothing else because the owner's kid only likes cheese and sausage. As long as you serve cheese and sausage, why not still serve other options so everyone can have the toppings they want?

I think I'm boring in that all I really want are the 8-11 core classes that existed prior to 3rd Edition D&D. I still don't really care about Monks or Sorcerers or Barbarians or the various Kit classes that were added afterwards if I'm being honest with myself lol.

Comparing the 6 classes currently available in BG3 to the 25 classes available in Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous, I guess I'd prefer the latter, but it does feel like a bit much especially with the subs.

Too many classes or subclasses just waters down the core in my view, and these were already upped from a dozen to like two dozen.

It becomes difficult to tell which of the "old" core classes these "new" core classes are supposed to be based off of, despite being pretty familiar with the basics. Even the spellsets and class ability descriptions become hard to follow, since many of them will use a new sub-class type descriptor to explain what they are. It's also hard parse the difference between Core Classes and Base Classes, Hybrid Classes, Occult Classes, Sub-Classes for each of those. Like they obviously just went a little too ham out of 3e, and kinda blurred all the lines.

In Pathfinder you have to spend a lot of time predicting what the game might offer without knowing for sure, and then prognosticating about what you'll be into way down the line, all before the game even begins. Assuming that everything you're shown at the start is actually implemented and working correctly too, which you know it won't cause it'll probably take a year just to crush the bugs. I guess it's part of the 3.5 inheritance to go this route with class, but they didn't really go out of their way to make it seem simple or new user friendly hehe.

I agree with Topgoon, it would have been much easier to understand what's what if the the Hybrid classes were actually described as such, like A+B (with reference to the traditional core classes of 3rd Ed) so the player could get a better sense of what they're actually choosing. Instead you'll choose say a Hunter, with spells described in terms of an Inquisitor, where both of those are probably unfamiliar to someone who just had like the standard PHB or Pathfinder source book.

Personally what I really dislike more than "one thousand classes" is the multiclass system where you can make your "piece meal" build taking one level here and one level there, etc. As if making a character was some weird buffet.
It's something I don't really like in principle even in D&D and Pathfinder just makes it worse.

I think my favorite multiclass system may be the one used in Pillars of Eternity 2 (and I don't even love that game as much as some other people here): you decide two classes upfront (with relative subclasses, if you really want to) and from that point on you are set.

The PoE 2 multiclass system is incredibly elegant IMO. There is no other multiclass system where I've seen abilities between classes interact in such interesting ways.

I know a lot of people didn't love the way Pillars had universal stats that somewhat killed the RPing (i.e. stats governed the same thing for spells AND attack. I.e. Might for Damage per hit, Perception is Accuracy, etc). However mechanically it played like a dream. And all the talk about the system being too balanced is utterly false too.


Pathfinder actually fixes a lot of 3.5e's dipping issues, but I think Owlcat just really seems to love Monk dips and Bathrobe Tanks. I.e. they implemented Mythic Mage Armor and all sorts of buffs for non-armor tanks, but deliberately gave armor users nothing. They even confirmed their intentions when asked on a recent launch AMA on reddit.

The meme-builds are exacerbated by the encounter design and stat-bloat. While you don't NEED uber high AC meme-builds to win encounters - lots of buffing, CC, and environmental spells can still do the job - the amount of encounter slog you gotta go through makes that kind of playstyle actually somewhat exhausting. Much more fun to just stat-bloat your own characters and steamroll the trash, so you can get to the fun stuff. I will probably finish this first playthrough on Core with straight classes, but I'm getting tempted moment to moment to respec.

The point of all the class options is that their actual fanbase wants to see their favorite class implemented. I suppose you could argue that they would have more appeal to a general audience if they reduced the class bloat, but they would take a hit with their core audience. Whether this makes good business sense is hard to say... but I'd wager that the developers (or many of them) are part of the core "Pathfinder crazy" audience, since you would have to be to embark on a project like this.

Also worth noting, aiming for a general audience by no means guarantees that you will attract a general audience. There are a LOT of games out there, and trying to compete with them outside of your core competency is a good way to go broke.

This is why I like 5e better than pathfinder. Much cleaner. I don't hate the bloat in Pathfinder, but I don't think it makes the system "better" in any sense.

PoE 2 multiclassing is very well built. So well done that it took me a year or two to realize that single class characters are still strong (via higher power level scaling).

I think views on the supposed restrictiveness of 5E depends on what sort of character type you favor. I tend to favor the arcane archer playstyle, which is niche in any gaming genre, and the one thing that has struck out to me the most is that 5E doesn't really have much support for dedicated archers in general. Tons of feats and subclasses for enhancing melee and magic, but almost nothing for archers in comparison. 5E Paladins in particular literally can't even smite with a bow. Warlock I guess can go with a hex archer sort of build from what I hear, but it almost seems like an accident rather than anything intentional.

Reading a Pathfinder multiclassing build with more than a single dip into another class always makes me question if I had a stroke on the way back home from work, so I don't bother with that shit on principle.

I also think PoE2's dual class/multiclass system is extremely good, but even that game had a lot of trap builds, though not through the fault of the multiclassing system itself. I feel that game was heavily over-sanitized with its balance, if that makes any sense. A symptom of subclasses basically pigeonholing you into playing in a very specific way, and not adhering to it hit you with penalties outweighing the benefits. Rangers getting a major stat nerf whenever their animal companions were KOed among them, unless you took the Ghost Heart subclass.

PoE2 would have probably been a lot more interesting build-wise without being utterly overwhelming and redundant like Pathfinder's system, if it toned down all of the malus from the subclasses (if not getting rid of base classes and striking away all of the subclass malus entirely) and had you dual class by default, meaning there'd be no single classing or being locked out of later skill levels as a result. It's the direction I hope a future PoE3 takes to really differentiate itself from all the other cRPGs in a gameplay sense. It's not surprising that the most popular multiclass options in PoE2 involve classes whose best abilities are frontloaded. Cipher's Time Parasite in particular would have a lot of interesting interactions with the other classes, if it wasn't solely locked to single classed Cipher.

Another example of nonexistent ai combined with baffling encounter design: on one of the early game locations, while still level 3, my party run into a level 7 shadow demon. I am not sure if this is an appropriate enemy for a low level party, considering the immunities and damage resistance. And yet the battle was very easy (and boring), because the shadow demon immediately zoomed in on my main character and would not switch targets, despite the fact that its attack was mostly cold damage and my character has innate cold resistance. So the entire fight my character was just drinking healing potions, with the occassional healing spell from Ember, while Seelah (who was the only one doing enough damage) kept chipping away.

I mean, in principle it's a problem with D&D 5th edition too.
They still allow the player to dip on multiple classes at once, which is precisely the issue I was pointing.

The only difference is that classes in D&D are so restrictive on what type of flavor they offer you aren't particularly encounraged to go crazy with the synergies.

And just for the record despise being "sub-optimal" for min-maxing I tend to stick to a single class in PF too.

Yeah Pillars had a cool concept. Pick 2 and progress in whichever direction you're vibing on most from there, according to the gameplay you find more entertaining. That seems durable and works pretty well.

They've been trying to solve the multiclass fascination dilemma since the earliest days when it was first introduced in D&D. Like how many kits or new classes basically amounted to... "a Wizard, but who casts spells like a Priest!" or "a Priest, but with a Sword!" Or a "Fighter, but with an animal buddy or that can sneak!" hehe

I always get a little confused about the order in which classes were first introduced in 1e going to AD&D, like Monk and Druid I think were definitely in there from pretty early. But first iteration was what, Divine Fighter, Regular Fighter, and Arcane Magic User, all human? Then Rogue/Thief out of Greyhawk? Add in Races to the bag and shake hehe. Regorganized then into the big 4 from 2nd Edition, where each archetypal Class had two or more variants basically going off the pick 2 idea for their secondary Class types.

Priest-Cleric> Druid (Priest+Animals hehe)
Warrior-Fighter> Barbarian and Ranger (Warrior+ Rogue/Priest basically), Paladin and Monk (Warrior+Priest/Wizard basically)
Wizard-Mage> Sorcerer (Wizard+Priest)
Rogue-Thief> Bard (Rogue+Wizard)

So basically from 4 to like 12, with a few more types weighted to the Warrior combo, since Warrior is always the most popular lol

I kind of feel like that was a good sweet spot, and everything that comes after would be better off as like kits that you can develop on top of those archetypes rather than being a core class choice up front. I guess that's kind of what 5e tries to do, just with a few of the other class combos rounded out to sort of match the Warrior combos now.

Also in Pathfinder there are so many background and deities that just kinda grant weapons proficiencies, it's almost like the old hybrid-core classes are kind of meaningless, since they were basically designed around equipment restrictions to sort of define them in the first place lol. But I do kind of appreciate just how many class concept types are floating around now just from seeing the big lists in the menus. It's more like pick 3 than pick 2 now I guess. I do like having Witches and Warlocks though, so I'm not too down on everything I guess. 25x6 subs seems a bit insane, but I guess if they pull them all off eventually I'll be pretty impressed. Probably nothing comes along after Pathfinder to really attempt the same, so seeing it taken to its extreme is kinda fascinating. I think I would have been into it when I was a little younger and less set in my ways maybe. I wish they'd have gone the extra mile and made each sub-class get a different look. Cause I can just picture someone new to the thing making choices arbitrarily based on that, and maybe finding something they really like on the random.

In all fairness weapon proficiency by itself in Pathfinder isn't worth shit.
It just establishes that you can hold a weapon, not that you are any good at it.

Hey look, more reactivity with your deity choice (or lack thereof).

moments like that combined with the mythic path moments are what i live for. I love it Also, Ember is so wholesome

Hmmm it’s one of those things that I’m enjoying the varied chat options that crop up ( I also had that dialogue this evening), but I’m not sure I would miss it. By that i mean I find a lot of the chat options are there as fluff.

Don’t get me wrong, it does help make the world seem as though it reacts to my character’s choices in life, more so than other games, but most of it isn’t impactful. And that’s fine too, not every piece of dialogue should be sparking rifts in the story. It’s just none of my religious or class choices have yet (and I stress - yet!) had any bearing on the story or my companions other than some neat lines of dialogue.

Yes if I play it through again there will be plenty to read that will be different, but the story doesn’t change (afaik) based on those options, more on my decisions.

Yeah I’m not really complaining, I enjoy the variation in dialogue options that crop up, it’s just often it feels like it’s in chats that are cute (like the above screenshot), but aren’t meaningful.

Who knows, maybe these little things add up down the line. I like that the game has engrossed me character wise, though the commander stuff is a bit of a slog to manage.

I respectfully disagree. Yes, D&D5e changed the subclasses choice to level 2 or 3 for some like fighters, rangers, druids... But for Sorcerers, Warlocks, clerics,... you still have to choose at level 1. And you do not have the opportunity to change that.
Say, you are an arcane archer but you will love to add the cool battle master manoeuvres to your repertory (Only archetype that makes fighters do more than "I Attack" every turn TBH) ... you are, again, out of luck.
In pathfinder, you can even have two archetypes with the condition that those two cannot change the same thing. So, in PF you can customize your subclass too (but nobody forces you to do that, you can even play the plain class without the archetype, in 5e they always force a subclass on your character, and you are stuck with it).

The "simplicity" of D&D5e makes that you make even more decisions at character creation than pathfinder. Let´s see why:

The skills, languages, tools you can use... your character will know you will learn at level one, in character creation, and that would be all the skills you will have available all the 20 levels afterwards! You choose animal handling as a skill for your ranger but the campaign ends up being in the Underdark where there are no animals, only aberrations and drows? Well, tough luck pal.

You have no possibility of learning new skills besides using a feat for that, a few archetypes and classes. You are stuck with what you learnt at the first level! Even weapon and armour proficiencies, you mostly have the ones you got at level 1.
Even if you multiclass you only get SOME of the proficiencies of the new class, and besides ranger and rogue, NONE of the skills of the new class. You do not even got all the weapon proficiencies of the new class. For example, A fighter multiclassing to cleric is still unable to pick the heal skill, a wizard multiclassing to rogue or bard is still unable to use rapiers, hand crossbows or bows... just because.

[And about bards, let´s not talk about how 5e Bards are unable to give your song to all the party, only one at a time. Same as with bless, aid, haste etc that you have to take an extra step just to give support to all your party members. Absolutely logical for a party-based game... aaanyway]

In comparison, in Pathfinder you can learn new skills when you level up, you can even put points in skills that are not from your class. You can learn new languages with the linguistic skill, you can pick new tools whenever you want.
And of course, when you multiclass you got all the weapons, armour, proficiencies, abilities and skills of the new class, not only some spares.


In PnP, most DMs are able to surpass the character creation limitations of D&D5e giving the opportunity to learn new things by roleplay: learning new languages, training in the use of new tools, make your familiar or animal companion use the skills you can´t, change your deity or patron by roleplay.... but sadly that does not translate to the 5e videogames because you do not have a DM.
They do not even have multiclass, so in the case of the D&D5e videogames, Solasta and BG3, they "solved" the excess of options by forcing you to choose the skills and weapon and armour proficiences for the entire game at level one or wasting a feat just to be able to learn more (let's remember that in 5e feats are limited to 3 in BG3/Solasta-, 4 for fighters- and you have to choose between a feat or +2 to your stats). In Pathfinder you only have to... well... level up.
And even if you have to use a feat to learn new things(You usually don´t) for some reason, you have more feats in PF and you do not have to choose between +2 to str, dex, etc and the feat...

And specifically about weapon proficiencies in the WoTR videogame, you have a upgradeable talking weapon, Finnean, that could change into any weapon in the game. Even if you do not find a weapon of your choice that you like, you can use Finnean the entire play.


That makes it even more meta and forces much more decisions that you have to make at level 1 for the entire 20 levels in 5e.

Until now at least I found your race, background, deity or class (you can multiclass so that would be a mess) does not change substantially the play, mechanically wise, only the dialogues.

The Mythic paths are what largely change the shape of the world, at least based on what we´ve seen in the first chapters, and some dialogue, alignment and other decisions you made by roleplaying during the campaign, not constrained by what you choose at level one. I prefer to shape the story by my decisions ingame, not by my character sheet.

Some examples with Ultra high spoilers. Really, if you do not want to be spoiled, do not open it.



Even if I like reactivity based on your character traits, I think that makes more sense this way. I mean, there are +50 class choices, 9 races and 12 deities, realistically it is not feasible to shape the world based on all those options unless you are making a visual novel. We were lucky about the stretch goal in the Kickstarter to add more deities and dialogues because we wouldn´t have that either.