how similiar is Pathfinder WotR?

[HouNDDoG]

This game is a blast! Having so much fun and just started act 2 at 45 hrs in. I'm already lookin for something similiar after this is done. Is WotR decent quality too? As good role playing, companions, and story? Thanks!

[KocLobster]

WOTR is a masterpiece. If you enjoy BG3 you will definitely enjoy WOTR.

If you're new to these types of games, that's all you truly need to know. The games play similarly but also have lots of differences. Same overall concept though...different companions, massive RPG/storytelling elements, turn-based combat, dice rolls.


I love everything Larian has developed, including BG3. With that said, I probably liked WOTR even more than I like BG3 so far.

[TripSin]

The Owlcat Pathfinder games are technologically way less sophisticated than Larian games on many levels. They're also exceptionally buggy, but maybe they've patched it some since release. Their stories are solid, but I think they are overall less interesting than BG3's. The ruleset that Pathfinder runs on is not as good - some enemies can be absolutely obnoxious and there is way too much need for prebuffing before fights. Especially at end game, you're literally sitting there for a long time before fights just to buff everyone again.

[The Seraph of Tomorrow]

Originally posted by HouNDDoG:

This game is a blast! Having so much fun and just started act 2 at 45 hrs in. I'm already lookin for something similiar after this is done. Is WotR decent quality too? As good role playing, companions, and story? Thanks!

Similar in that it's a CRPG, but in every other aspect it's lower graphics, but a vastly larger and more player choice kind of game.

Larian makes small high-graphic RPG's where Owlcat tries to make huge true-ish to the Table Top style adaptations. I can tell you from my own experience, I left BG3 unsatisfied, and in terms of WoTr I loved the player freedom in my class / mythic.

I'll put it this way, with the budget Larian had. Owlcat could have created something far superior given owlcat only had a budget of 2m for its game and BG3 had around 100m.

The claim...

"The game is built around the idea of a rise to power via one of six different Mythic Paths, each of which will transform the player’s character into a powerful being with special abilities. They will also significantly affect the story branches, change the world around the character, and impact the player’s relationships with companions and NPCs."

was a lot more true than BG3's 17000 endings claim.

[Gregorovitch]

WotR is indeed a masterpiece. Definitely the same genre (hard core cRPG) and very similar to BG3 in most respects except:

1. Pathfinder rule set is a LOT more complex that D&D 5e and enables some crazy builds and serious power gaming.

2. BG3 has far higher production values that WotR. After BG3 playing WotR will seem a bit....antiquated, but that's no reason not to play it, it's a fantastic game.

The Pillars of Eternity games are excellent too and they are in fact closer to the vibe of BG3 that WotR is IMO.

[Beef Hammer]

Love both games, but the only thing I would say was better in BG3 is the graphics. Story and combat goto WotR. Oh and WotR class selection is just on a whole other level.

[KocLobster]

Originally posted by TripSin:

The Owlcat Pathfinder games are technologically way less sophisticated than Larian games on many levels. They're also exceptionally buggy, but maybe they've patched it some since release. Their stories are solid, but I think they are overall less interesting than BG3's. The ruleset that Pathfinder runs on is not as good - some enemies can be absolutely obnoxious and there is way too much need for prebuffing before fights. Especially at end game, you're literally sitting there for a long time before fights just to buff everyone again.

Lots of time spent prebuffing - very fair point.

Everything else I think is up for debate, or respectfully, just not true. I didn't play WOTR until after definitive edition, and it's extremely polished now. It may have been way more buggy in the beginning.

[zero]

i prefer wrath to this game, and that is not a diss of this game at all

wrath uses the pathfinder ruleset, which is my personal fav, its similar to 3.xE, and retains the high level of fantasy that comes with it, magical items are frequent and easy, some have very interest effects, and of course, the game goes all the way to 20(with an additional 10 mythic ranks, which is like an enhancement of your class)

it is however known as mathfinder for a reason, there is a lot of numbers skyrocketing, which again, i like, but can be confusing for first timers.

[Phantom]

Pathfinder (both of them) put this game to shame for doing that... but you kinda gotta understand what you are doing or you will EASILY build a character too weak to do anything in those games

if you know how to build them pathfinder builds are stupidly OP vs the content though

MUCH larger games (both of them) with MUCH more choices to make

[Crom]

Originally posted by HouNDDoG:

This game is a blast! Having so much fun and just started act 2 at 45 hrs in. I'm already lookin for something similiar after this is done. Is WotR decent quality too? As good role playing, companions, and story? Thanks!

Pathfinder story is great, but very short.

Companions are very very well writen.

Graphic is targeting 10 years old audience.

Gameplay is pure awful garbage.

If i could make again decision, i would choose to not play that game. Waste of time.

[KocLobster]

Originally posted by Crom:

Originally posted by HouNDDoG:

This game is a blast! Having so much fun and just started act 2 at 45 hrs in. I'm already lookin for something similiar after this is done. Is WotR decent quality too? As good role playing, companions, and story? Thanks!

Pathfinder story is great, but very short.

Companions are very very well writen.

Graphic is targeting 10 years old audience.

Gameplay is pure awful garbage.

If i could make again decision, i would choose to not play that game. Waste of time.

I spent 350 hours on my first WOTR playthrough lol.

[HouNDDoG]

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

WotR is indeed a masterpiece. Definitely the same genre (hard core cRPG) and very similar to BG3 in most respects except:

1. Pathfinder rule set is a LOT more complex that D&D 5e and enables some crazy builds and serious power gaming.

2. BG3 has far higher production values that WotR. After BG3 playing WotR will seem a bit....antiquated, but that's no reason not to play it, it's a fantastic game.

The Pillars of Eternity games are excellent too and they are in fact closer to the vibe of BG3 that WotR is IMO.

Nice, I have played both Pillars of Eternity games and loved them. Also DOS2.

[WeenerTuck813]

BG3 is definitely the better of the two games in my opinion. Pathfinder is similar, and it’s the same genre. It’s a pretty good game all things considered, I would still get it and play it. It’s definitely not going to give you the same cinematic, RPG, voice, acting experience… But you are going to get to turn into mythic levels and become an ultra powerful angel, or demon, and become insanely powerful.

[zero]

Originally posted by cookie!:

Originally posted by Crom:

Pathfinder story is great, but very short.

Companions are very very well writen.

Graphic is targeting 10 years old audience.

Gameplay is pure awful garbage.

If i could make again decision, i would choose to not play that game. Waste of time.

I spent 350 hours on my first WOTR playthrough lol.

yeah im a bit confused by that, wrath has like a expected 50 hours if you just focus the main story alone, let alone all the other stuff to get the secret ending.

[Myth Alric]

Personally I think Wraith of the rightous is as good as BG3. It doesn't have the cinematic conversations, and each area has it's own map rather than a connected map but otherwise it is very much the same. It does use pathfinder instead of 5e, but that is just as fun. In fact, a lot of people prefer pathfinder, since it is more in depth in many ways. For character customization it is probably better and they actually tell you everything you get as you get in future level ups ahead of time, so there are less surprises.

Solasta is also a very good game, which is also 5e like BG3. Solasta doesn't have companions but instead lets you make a custom party of 4 people. So for people who don't like companions and want to do their own thing, it might actually be better. Solasta also focuses on the bigger overarching story, and less about personal stuff. Combat wise, it is more closely tied to the actual 5e rules than BG3 is, so it is more by the book, which is probably more fun in some ways(all those people who say BG3 is too much like divinity original sins, will probably like Solasta more).

[Jaggid Edje]

It's probably fixed by now, but I never even finished WotR, because it was a buggy mess when I played. I just quit and gave up on it, about 2 months after it was released. It was that bad, bug-wise.

It may or may not have been fixed at this point, but I gave up on waiting for them. The main bugs I had was that a ton of feats and abilities simply did not function the way their tooltips said they did (or at all), and I was tired of wasting time making a nice build, working toward it, gearing it up, only to find the build didn't function as intended due to bugs.

It's also based on a rule set where they pretty much expect you to pre-buff for fights, which makes things super tedious, imo. But there's a mod for automating that.

Personally, I'd recommend Kingmaker over WotR. I gave Kingmaker a positive review, and kickstarted WotR becaue of how much I loved it. Sadly, Owlcat let me down with WotR.