Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
PF:WotR is a very good game, too, but the pre-buffing in 3.5e is unbelievably annoying, would love to play it on my PS5, but it's unbearable without a buff bot mod.
Pathfinder 1 and 2 both feel deeper mechanically and are (probably) more true to the core tabletop game. I'd say it's less friendly to players new to the genre. There's nothing wrong with the story or characters, I just prefer BG3's so far.
Both are worth buying if you like CRPGs, though.
Also the combat is a bit different between two games, you can even have a realtime mode in pathfinder.
Wraith is a better game in my opinion though, legendary story and you many choices that will completely change the game.
Wraith's character progression is miles better than BG3. If you take the Warlock class in BG3 as an example, 2 levels of nothing (7 and 9), 2 levels of predetermined class features (6 and 10) and 3 underwhelming feat choices (4, 8 and 12). Not much choice to make other than the spells to pick. You basically dont look foward to leveling up. But if you like a more streamline way of playing, then BG3 will be better for you.
That being said, they are both fun games and worth the money. If you only have time and/or money to play 1, i would recommend Wraith.
I'm doing another WOTR playthrough after I finish BG3 if that says anything...and I dumped 350 hours into it the first time
Leveling up in BG3 is just so disappointing and you can probably count the number of actual choices during level up on the finger of one hand if you don't count in spells.
Yeah, buffing is a lot more prevalent in Wrath, but you can always lower the difficulty to require less buffs. And not all buffs need to be up for every fight.
There are even feats that allow you to make buffs last for a whole in game day.
As for comparison.
Pros for BG3:
- easier to get into,
- prettier
- voiced
Cons for BG3:
- Boring to level up
- don't really feel that powerful
- apparently act 3 is still quite buggy and has a lot of cut content
- very linear ending and no ending slides.
Pros for Wrath:
- Incredible build variety
- highly customizable difficulty setting
- feeling powerful the more you level
- very different story lines depending on your mythic path with proper unique endings and sliders telling you how everyone fares
Cons for Wrath:
-Heavy on the mechanics and difficult to get into if you don't have experience with DnD as well as don't lower the difficulty
- crusader system is not well recieved by everyone but it can be automated
- some battles, especially the optional boss ones, can be very difficult. There are also some areas you should not visit as soon as you can and level up a bit more
I don't think I could have put it better myself. Wrath has more consistency in character building owing to Pathfinder 1 being better for a cRPG with a combat emphasis. The character work appears to be better as well and respect demographics a bit better on top of a more divergence and focused plot. But in turn BG3 absolutely is more beautiful visually and has more dynamic environment mechanics.
I'd 100% choose Wrath if you're willing to put up with the weaknesses inherent to pathfinder 1, and even then I think Wratch ends up better overall. Plus it's optimized enough my rig can actually run the thing....
Mostly due to the ability to become a lich and woke isnt as in your face as baldurs gate 3 is.
Both are fine.
It is just a question of what matters more.
Being able to change into an angel, demon, lich, azura, aeon, trickers, swarm, devil, golden dragon or idiot-he-rejected-his-powers.
Or a mind flayer.
WOTR wins in writing, quality of life, character development - both mechanically and narratively, and satisfying conclusions. I didn't mesh with every character in the game, but the ones I enjoyed had serious arcs that span over the game's five chapters and kept me hooked. The game knows how to set up epic moments and deliver, partially because of the writing and partially due to the amazing soundtrack. There's also simply more paths to choose from; every mythic path has a significant impact on your abilities and story, with certain endings only achieved by the right mythic powers. And that's not even getting into the insane amount of class choices, 30 classes to choose and then most of those have variants that swap out features!
Despite the complexities of the system, WOTR is also easier to play because of all the helpful features included in the game. Clicking on a locked chest automatically sends the proper character over to unlock it, conversations always pick the best party member to attempt persuasion or other checks, the inventory is a combined bag for everyone and has various filter and search options, and all the class progression is included in helpful tables you can reference. The difficulty has dozens of features you can customize, from the amount of enemies, to how hard each enemy is scaled up, to whether your party suffers critical hits or can permanently die, and so on.
The biggest downsides of WOTR are presentation and the Crusade minigame. It didn't have the millions behind BG3, so don't expect sweeping cutscenes, party close ups (not that you'd want to see the models that close), or minor NPCs to be voice acted. Also, the Crusade system is... not good. You'll get sick of the battles way before the end of the game.
Overall, I think WOTR was more fun for me. BG3 has a lot of Larian-isms that still irk me, but it's not a bad game by any means. I was just more attached to the decisions in WOTR. The characters were interesting and likeable, and I cared about how my choices affected them. I have significantly less investment in the cast and narrative of BG3. I could talk at length about the issues I have with Larian's writing, but this is already long enough.
Owlcat games are for tryhards.
with that said: pathfinder is known as mathfinder for a reason; the numbers climb quick, easily, and sometimes with a lot of stacking effects, which can be confusing until you understand (IE much like how 2 of the same effect in 5e, the same is in pathfinder, but there are a lot of similar effects that aren't the same, a +2 enhancement bonus is not the same as a +2 alchemical bonus, so if both add a +2 to str, you get a +4 total)
basically, 5e was designed from the ground up to be an easy entry into D&D, and it does a good job for that.
pathfinder, however, was made to be open licensed 3.xE D&D, so it goes into high numbers and a lot of magical items quickly, and because its been around for decades, has *so much* content to work with.
i prefer pathfinder by a large margin and had a wonderful time with wrath, but im not gonna say that its easy to get into, its very much a game for people who want pathfinder, not an easy entry.
That Said BG3 i havnt felt as warn and torn playing through. I enjoy the cinematic it offers which is a lot. Its a very interesting story, i enjoy the combat though i think Owlcats is a bit better. But the diolog and cinematics are soooo enjoyable.
I'm loving both games, and ammmmmmmmmm hoping both keep going for years to come.
I could gush over them both. I will say it a shame owlcat didnt get as much love as BG3 considering all it offers. But that aside i love em both. Im just blabbering now. Bye ya'll!