How does this compare to Pathfinder WofTR...?

[Kilo_60]

From anyone who's played both is this any better?

[Flip]

Автор сообщения: cire87

swarm that walks is pretty insane

Azata and a Pet dragon, I always go back, cannot help myself.

[puksone]

Huge part of WOTR is optimization/power gaming + epicness of the mythic pathes. You don't have that in BG3.

[Lesbon]

Really depend what you are looking for. WofTR has the most in-depth character creation I have ever seen, very interesting characters and real-time-with-pause.

It is, also, absolutely bonker-difficult at time and can be maddeningly frustrating even on normal difficulty. I actually had to switch to story mode near-the-end, not because I was stuck but because every fight was turning into a slow, boring slog. Baldur's Gate 3 is already shaping to be a far more 'fair' experience.

[Aldain]

WotR is a fun game aggressively held back by Owlcat's game design choices.

Stat bloat, countless trash mobs, more stat bloat, a drag-ass slow beginning, the Crusade system being so comically half assed that it feels like a bad joke, and did I mention the stat bloat?

It's less irritating than Kingmaker in my opinion, but...that's not saying much.

[Tommy The Gun]

Автор сообщения: cire87

swarm that walks is pretty insane

Yeah, the mythic stuff in that game is awesome. Like in what D&D (or Pathfinder) game you can play as an actual "true" Dragon ? Yeah, not many.

[Anxious Egg]

dont get me wrong I did enjoy the pathfinder games, but replaying them gets a bit stale. haven't had the same problem with BG3 yet.
Might be cuz I like BG3's companions more than pathfinders.

Also I enjoy the combat more. Pathfinders can get repetitive fast imo.
I just dont get the same feedback from hitting stuff in pathfinder.

the secret ending was a royal pain in the ass

[Aria Athena]

For one, this will be playable on release.

[Hobocop]

Автор сообщения: Tommy The Gun

Автор сообщения: cire87

swarm that walks is pretty insane

Yeah, the mythic stuff in that game is awesome. Like in what D&D (or Pathfider) game you can play as an actual "true" Dragon ? Yeah, not many.

Don't remind me. Gold Dragon is the cherry on top of a disappointment cake because it's outdone in every regard by a baseline Arcanist archetype with paper-thin narrative backing that had all the payoff of a damp firework.

[MrDammit]

Iv'e 600hours in WOTR, really great game. Biggest difference I think will be the 8 missing lvls. WOTR focuses on those lvls and they aren't in BG3 yet. That said, I expect BG3 to be better.

[Quacksalber]

This is way better. WotR is ruined by the incredibly tedious map movement/resting mechanic that has you endlessly plodding back and forth and suffering a multitude of loading screens in the process, not to mention the terrible army mechanic and the annoying kingdom management.

[SneakyGuy]

There is not much that can compare to this game.

SOme of it could be taste. But BG3 has something wwe haven't seen yet wit hthe depth of voiced over, dialogue skill checks and choices REALLLY affecting things.

WoTr has this mini strategy layer. some like it, most don't or are neutral. Lots of trash mob fights that you end up automating. When you find and get into a real turn based fight it shines.

And the one thing better I guess with Wotr is if you like to spend majority of your time with M/C build tinkering the Wotr EXCELS to the point of wrecking your brain!

[Aryend]

Honestly, WOTR is a very good game with tons of build options and depth, but in the end, its also a very unbalanced and flawed one, with severe difficulty spikes and insane stat bloat that makes many of its build options obsolete unless you play on the easier difficulties.
I feel like Larian is better at giving the player freedom and non-linear story progression and BG3 is a more fun and polished game overall (from what I've played so far).

And this coming from someone who loves and has played and mastered quite a few Pathfinder 1e games.

All that said, WOTR is still well worth getting.

[Edstyles]

Автор сообщения: Kilo_60

From anyone who's played both is this any better?

there is no comparison. Bgs 3 is vastly better ofc. Better quality better gameplay , better voice actors I mean i dont think pathfinder has anything it could beat bg3 on aside from quantity of classes and thats whatever cause they are majorly inbalanced anyway. So u end up playing 1/4 of the classes.

[elbentzo]

Автор сообщения: Kilo_60

From anyone who's played both is this any better?

It really depends on your preference as a player. I'll try to list several objective differences.

1. Build variety. WotR has probably the greatest build variety in any RPG ever. You can literally create hundreds of characters which are *nothing* like each other, and not only due to equipment. Their actual abilities and the stuff they do (in and out of battle) will be completely different. In dnd5e, there's very little variety in each class and subclass.

2. Game difficulty. WotR is a very difficult game. Even on lower difficulties, inexperienced players can be completely overwhelmed, not to mention high difficulties. If you want a ruthless challange, WotR is much more suited. If you hate getting frustrated because you've restarted an encounter 15 times already and still haven't beat it -- BG3 is probably better for you.

3. Rule difficulty. WotR uses Pathfinder1e, which is almost identical to dnd3.5, while BG3 uses dnd5e. WotR's system is notorious for being one of the most complex and difficult to learn in the world of RPG's, while BG3's system is considered one of the most streamlined and simple. If you don't have experience with the systems, getting into BG3 will be *a lot* easier than getting into WotR. However, the complexity of the system is a part of what makes WotR so rich and incredibly rewarding once you do understand it.

4. Reactivity. BG3 is much more reactive, both to your character (race, class) and mostly to your decisions. In WotR the world acknowledges major decisions you make, but except for a handfull of choices, they don't have a huge effect on the world and NPC's around you. BG3 has a ton of reactivity.

5. Production value. BG3 has a much higher production value. It's budget is a million times larger and it shows. Graphics, voice acting, almost every aspect that can be improved with money is richer in BG3.

6. Power level and scope. BG3 lets you reach level 12, and it's safe to assume you won't be battling gods and archdevils (since, well, you're limited to level 12). WotR is an epic scope tale where you reach not only level 20 (max level in both dnd5e and PF1), but you also get incredible mythic powers on top of it. You basically finish the game as powerful as a minor diety, and you go up against such enemies accordingly.

7. Writing. Obviously we can't compare the actual stories since we still know very little about BG3, only act 1, but in the scripting level, I think the writing in WotR is better, or I should say, much more atmospheric. Maybe because it's not fully voice acted, it feels like there's a lot more text describing things and setting moods than in BG3.

8. Gameplay. BG3 is strictly a crpg, while WotR is like 90% crpg, with some kingdom management, Heroes of Might and Magic style tactic combat, and even some text events (in the style of old choose-your-own-adventure books). Again, this is up to player preferences. A lot of players dislike the management elements of WotR, but some players love it.

All in all, of course I won't know until I finish BG3, but I seriously doubt it would be as enjoyable to me as WotR. I have thousands of hours WotR, and I'm still playing it a lot. BG3 seems much close to D:OS2 in my eyes, where you play it a couple of times and forget about it. Then again, my own personal preferences are very much in line with WotR (I love extremely difficult tactic games, I love the mindblowing diversity of characters and builds, I love the epic scale of the adventure, etc.).

[cl656]

WOTR isn't fully voiced.