Baldurs Gate 3

[Orby]

Ah great!
Maybe i'll give it a shot once it's fully released

that's how I am rolling. I have stayed away from any major story reveal involving this game and will be heading in pretty blind. Except for the opening which I will admit I have seen.

[dlld]

BG is so far from release, content wise, that it's pointless to compare the two IMO.

They will be nearly identical in features, depth, and content amount (BG might even have more) when the game actually releases and I like a lot of the ways they did things in BG a lot better. Don't get me wrong, WOTR is fun as hell.

BG3 will be a superior 'cinematic' experience while wotr will be superior in the gameplay department. 5E is such a simplistic system that I'm a bit worried it's going to get rather stale long before you finish, and we aren't even getting to 20 either.

[Orby]

BG3 will be a superior 'cinematic' experience while wotr will be superior in the gameplay department. 5E is such a simplistic system that I'm a bit worried it's going to get rather stale long before you finish, and we aren't even getting to 20 either.

I still in the process of finishing SOLASTA, Pathfinder is on my follow up list.

[BeepBoo]

BG3 will be a superior 'cinematic' experience while wotr will be superior in the gameplay department. 5E is such a simplistic system that I'm a bit worried it's going to get rather stale long before you finish, and we aren't even getting to 20 either.

I don't know about that. Pathfinder has been incredibly simplistic so far (not that 5e isn't also simplistic). I don't think either lends themselves to iso RPG gameplay that much tbh. Divinity OS 1&2 were much better in this regard because they were tailor made for this style of combat. It's immersion breaking to me to constantly have to rest to get spell uses back (literally who the fuck takes a full 24 hour break after 5 minutes of combat?) and the game is boring when it's just auto-attacks and no spells. Again, both DND and PF suffer from this in these types of games.

PF is pretty bad at the start (granted, I play on non-scrub difficulty) because you're missing attacks like over half the time and that makes it even slower/more boring.

I don't recall the early hours of BG3 because I only played like 1 hour to see if it was something I'm interested in, which it DEFINITELY is.

Maybe I'd have more fun playing on lower difficulty in WOTR because things would go faster, but my ego also gets in the way of that .

[Tyris Flare]

I apologize for not sifting through 100 pages. But has anyone provided their thoughts between BG3, and Pathfinder: WotR?

I am currently playing Pathfinder, but am more interested in the 5e system.

I burned out on WoR after about 20 hours. Honestly Divinity 2 kind of ruined other CRPGs for me. WoR is a perfectly okay game and better than Kingmaker but it still has a lot of problems.

-Most of the companions are uninteresting or don't become interesting for like 30 hours.
-Pathfinder mechanics do the game a huge disservice in so many ways, big and small. Even with the option to heal conditions on resting, it's just so much tedium of monsters draining your party or requiring X spell.
-related to that, the buffing meta is so degenerate I genuinely can't believe so many people still enjoy this after 20 years of 3rd edition. It's terrible.
-Crusade Mode has potential but at present is atrocious, it's basically the worst possible Heroes of Might and Magic clone with unbalanced and uninteresting monsters/abilities/mechanics.
-Mythic paths are a mess since you can't get some of the cool ones until the game is almost over.
-The actual kingdom management is insanely tedious.
-This is more personal, but being partially voiced (like 10%? maybe 20%?) actually bothers me a lot. If something is voiced, you know it is important. It makes everything else feels like a cheap budget game in 2021.


The game has great music and a lot of great environments. The story is pretty generic but it's not bad, and there are some genuinely good elements and decisions. Unfortunately PoE 1+2 and Divinity 2 are just better in basically every way.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know about that. Pathfinder has been incredibly simplistic so far (not that 5e isn't also simplistic). I don't think either lends themselves to iso RPG gameplay that much tbh. Divinity OS 1&2 were much better in this regard because they were tailor made for this style of combat. It's immersion breaking to me to constantly have to rest to get spell uses back (literally who the fuck takes a full 24 hour break after 5 minutes of combat?) and the game is boring when it's just auto-attacks and no spells. Again, both DND and PF suffer from this in these types of games.

PF is pretty bad at the start (granted, I play on non-scrub difficulty) because you're missing attacks like over half the time and that makes it even slower/more boring.

I don't recall the early hours of BG3 because I only played like 1 hour to see if it was something I'm interested in, which it DEFINITELY is.

Maybe I'd have more fun playing on lower difficulty in WOTR because things would go faster, but my ego also gets in the way of that .

Yeah it's a big problem. BG3 will almost certainly be better than WoR because it has a bigger budget, better production values, and a better story. Also 5e mechanics are less cumbersome and annoying

BUT they are still pretty bad for a video game. Resting is such an idiotic and unfun mechanic. It was bad in Pillars too, but at least that custom system was less bad overall with monster design and super tedium that only grognards could truly enjoy. And Divinity just has better mechanics, abilities, and gameplay than any d20 system. Stuff that works fine in tabletop just doesn't work as well in video games imo

[Kathandira]

I burned out on WoR after about 20 hours. Honestly Divinity 2 kind of ruined other CRPGs for me. WoR is a perfectly okay game and better than Kingmaker but it still has a lot of problems.

-Most of the companions are uninteresting or don't become interesting for like 30 hours.
-Pathfinder mechanics do the game a huge disservice in so many ways, big and small. Even with the option to heal conditions on resting, it's just so much tedium of monsters draining your party or requiring X spell.
-related to that, the buffing meta is so degenerate I genuinely can't believe so many people still enjoy this after 20 years of 3rd edition. It's terrible.
-Crusade Mode has potential but at present is atrocious, it's basically the worst possible Heroes of Might and Magic clone with unbalanced and uninteresting monsters/abilities/mechanics.
-Mythic paths are a mess since you can't get some of the cool ones until the game is almost over.
-The actual kingdom management is insanely tedious.
-This is more personal, but being partially voiced (like 10%? maybe 20%?) actually bothers me a lot. If something is voiced, you know it is important. It makes everything else feels like a cheap budget game in 2021.


The game has great music and a lot of great environments. The story is pretty generic but it's not bad, and there are some genuinely good elements and decisions. Unfortunately PoE 1+2 and Divinity 2 are just better in basically every way.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah it's a big problem. BG3 will almost certainly be better than WoR because it has a bigger budget, better production values, and a better story. Also 5e mechanics are less cumbersome and annoying

BUT they are still pretty bad for a video game. Resting is such an idiotic and unfun mechanic. It was bad in Pillars too, but at least that custom system was less bad overall with monster design and super tedium that only grognards could truly enjoy. And Divinity just has better mechanics, abilities, and gameplay than any d20 system. Stuff that works fine in tabletop just doesn't work as well in video games imo

I been playing for a few weeks, I have well over 20 hours so far. And honestly, I agree with just about all of what you said.

I do enjoy the companions, that might be the only thing where I would somewhat disagree with you on. Otherwise, yeah...you hit it home on the bullet points.

I have a new PC being delivered to me in a few weeks. Only reason I chose WotR over the others, is because my current computer is able to run it (even if just barely) on the minimum settings. Since the one I have coming in will be able to run modern games at a reasonable graphical level, I am exploring the options of another CRPG to play.

I've been very interested in DOS2, so I might just have to pick that up when the new computer arrives!

[dlld]

I don't know about that. Pathfinder has been incredibly simplistic so far (not that 5e isn't also simplistic). I don't think either lends themselves to iso RPG gameplay that much tbh. Divinity OS 1&2 were much better in this regard because they were tailor made for this style of combat. It's immersion breaking to me to constantly have to rest to get spell uses back (literally who the fuck takes a full 24 hour break after 5 minutes of combat?) and the game is boring when it's just auto-attacks and no spells. Again, both DND and PF suffer from this in these types of games.

PF is pretty bad at the start (granted, I play on non-scrub difficulty) because you're missing attacks like over half the time and that makes it even slower/more boring.

I don't recall the early hours of BG3 because I only played like 1 hour to see if it was something I'm interested in, which it DEFINITELY is.

Maybe I'd have more fun playing on lower difficulty in WOTR because things would go faster, but my ego also gets in the way of that .

While side by side combat is on a surface level pretty similar especially at low levels, the fighter will run up to baddie and use every action to swing whatever weapon he's equipped with until it's dead mostly.

But behind the scenes with class building, stats etc it's certainly more complex, much much more so if you want a good character. Basic 5E gives you literally none or 1 choice after level 1 that being the 'subclass' unless you cast spells and count selecting spells as choice. I do think BG3 will have multiclassing but in 5E it's worse more often then not to do so, and feats of course but there's so few of them so you probably only have like at best 3 feats that are good and you will only get 3 feats at most anyway as they only come every 4 levels and at the expense of attribute raises (we aint getting to 16 for sure given their intended target was originally 10).

5E's greatest strength is it's simplicity, because pnp games lives and dies by the amount of DMs willing to run games. The easier it is for the DM the more people are willing to be one. This is the reason 5e got so big but that strength is completely nullified in a video game format for obvious reasons.

[beanman12345]

I still in the process of finishing SOLASTA, Pathfinder is on my follow up list.

Solasta only real drawback for me was the replayability of the campaign when compared to pathfinder or BG3, but it does have the dungeon making editor that the other two don't which I spent the majority of my time in. Would love a campaign creator in BG3.

[Makabreska]

I finally tried Kingmaker this week as a cRPG veteran, and holy crap I can't stomach it. The number of small and big stats to look after, lvl 1 characters starting with like 10-12 spells I dunno what to even do with, managing god damn encumbrance, uninspiring story and companions, and of course famous spoder cave, where I went with alchemist fire but those swarms still dodged 4 out of 5 throws. Like said above, Original Sin 2 and Pillars of Eternity are my go-to type of cRPGs nowadays, and that's why I am looking so hard forward towards BG3 (this and Black Isle games being my childhood favs).

[Gaidax]

WoTR was pretty good, it's still a huge ass game and a great D&D-like isometric RPG with good visuals just as the doctor has ordered really. I'd really love to have Owlcat do something with D&D 5e, but seems like they are squarely in Pathfinder corner. I'm looking forward to their next game.

Ofc WoTR vs BG3 now is no contest, because WoTR is a done game. I have huge hopes for BG3, even if I suspect we might not even get it in 2022 given all the signals from Larian boss. I just hope they won't repeat the DOS2 initial fiasco where they ran out of steam for last act and had to touch it up year on, but in same breath I still expect BG3 to be great because DOS2 is.

And on 3.5e or Pathfinder vs 5e - I'm squarely in 5e camp, exactly because it removes so much clutter and general craziness.

[The Offbeat]

And on 3.5e or Pathfinder vs 5e - I'm squarely in 5e camp, exactly because it removes so much clutter and general craziness.

While I can see where you're coming from. I just feel 5e is so limiting in choice and scope. I play 5e and all i feel is a lack of customization and imagination compared to pathfinder. It probably doesn't help that my favorite class the Monk is near trash compared to the pathfinder unchained version.. But as a system. I just can't get beyond how you have so little choice to change your character within their class. It's not bad, just.. lesser.
--


As for BG3, I do have hopes for the game. DS2 was one of my favorite co-op experiences ever, but I also hope Larian takes the series origins to heart and implement at the very least subtle nods to BG 1-2.. and add my bae Viconia. She could still be alive I hope, her being a drow and all.

[quras]

SNIP...

And on 3.5e or Pathfinder vs 5e - I'm squarely in 5e camp, exactly because it removes so much clutter and general craziness.

I'm of that mindset as well.
5e is just a streamlined D&D game that does D&D and does it well. The pandemic helped but 5e is most likely the most popular of all the versions. 3.5 and PF goes a bit off the rails just a bit.

5E is a solid way to run BG3. What I hope is they stick to 5e as much as possible. I know a lot of people when EA first started didn't care for all the AOE abilities they gave so many mobs with arrows, bombs, vials and globs. All so low level mobs could hit everyone and pretend AC just doesn't matter. I'm glad they moved away from that a bit through not enough personally.
Same thing for giving mobs abilities they do not normally have in game. Minotaur's and Bullette being two in particular.

And with this new patch, giving everyone who picks up a weapon (and proficient with it) minor battlemaster skills. I don't think I'm a fan of that but time will tell.

Overall, 5e has it where it counts. Larian doesn't need to deviate from it all that much.

[Orby]

Solasta only real drawback for me was the replayability of the campaign when compared to pathfinder or BG3, but it does have the dungeon making editor that the other two don't which I spent the majority of my time in. Would love a campaign creator in BG3.

Its a very flawed game for sure, but for some reason I find it charming enough to keep playing it lol.

Its like babies first CRPG, its very simple and covers really basic stuff. if you are new to those types of games then I would actually recommend SOLASTA, especially as a gateway into other CRPG games. I know alot of CRPG's can be daunting to get into with people new to them.

[thilicen]

Last I heard/saw july 2022 is their current goal.

How far into development are they though? Far as I've been following only Act 1 is available for testing in EA, and that release date doesn't leave a lot of time for an Act 2 and eventually Act 3, especially with the pace of which they are adding major content releases. Or are they not going to release the following acts in EA at all?
Been trying to stay away from this one until the full game releases so I don't really know how they are planning on releasing the remaining bulk.

[Proskill]

so uhhh, whats the difference between a sorcerer and other mages, wizards, whatever?

[BeepBoo]

so uhhh, whats the difference between a sorcerer and other mages, wizards, whatever?

Spell lists, primary attributes, and (thematically) the source of their power.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comment...aster_classes/

- - - Updated - - -

While I can see where you're coming from. I just feel 5e is so limiting in choice and scope.

I don't know about that. I feel like with pathfinder, you're almost always better off multiclassing, but the feats and skills are so similar between things that ultimately it doesn't make much difference in how you play.

In 5e, you're welcome to multiclass, but it has to be for VERY specific reasons and you have to know what you're doing. Feats in 5e mean trading ASIs, which I feel is good. It means there are some excellent build opportunities, but they're not just going to be far-and-away OP like pathfinder builds are.

I hate how pathfinder has so much broken shit that if you WANT to play a pure class, you're actively hindering your performance. They should be balanced.

But as a system. I just can't get beyond how you have so little choice to change your character within their class. It's not bad, just.. lesser.

Again, IDK where this is coming from. You have so many more spells you can choose from (most of the time) and you can have some really cool ability interactions. Meanwhile, pathfinder is just "cast 100 buffs and go fight" or "use your very limited wombo once or twice then resort to normal attacks."

Choice feels shallow in pathfinder. I can't speak on BG3, but at least in 5e I feel like I'm not just building shenanigans that make me a veritable god and am instead tailoring my playstyle just because I like the way it feels and the things happen to interact in some special way.

[Tyris Flare]

I'm of that mindset as well.
5e is just a streamlined D&D game that does D&D and does it well. The pandemic helped but 5e is most likely the most popular of all the versions. 3.5 and PF goes a bit off the rails just a bit.

5E is a solid way to run BG3. What I hope is they stick to 5e as much as possible. I know a lot of people when EA first started didn't care for all the AOE abilities they gave so many mobs with arrows, bombs, vials and globs. All so low level mobs could hit everyone and pretend AC just doesn't matter. I'm glad they moved away from that a bit through not enough personally.
Same thing for giving mobs abilities they do not normally have in game. Minotaur's and Bullette being two in particular.

And with this new patch, giving everyone who picks up a weapon (and proficient with it) minor battlemaster skills. I don't think I'm a fan of that but time will tell.

Overall, 5e has it where it counts. Larian doesn't need to deviate from it all that much.

5e isn't just the most popular version. it is like 10x more popular than anything else. It has WoW levels of dominance during its peak.

Like it can't be emphasized enough. Everything that's not 5e is a drop in the ocean these days. 5e and critical role just thankfully made the ocean a lot bigger, too.

[The Offbeat]

Spell lists, primary attributes, and (thematically) the source of their power.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comment...aster_classes/

- - - Updated - - -


I don't know about that. I feel like with pathfinder, you're almost always better off multiclassing, but the feats and skills are so similar between things that ultimately it doesn't make much difference in how you play.

The most powerful classes in PF are single-class wizards/casters.. just like in 5e. You can make multiclass characters powerful, certainly. But most often, you won't. The general concensus however is that singleclass is the best for almost all classes. Conversely, in 5e you can get stupid powerboosts by taking single levels in classes. Say.. Blade warlock. For a one level investment, you get proficiency in medium armor, martial weapons. Hexblades curse, and a spell slot that recharges on a short rest. One more level and you have the potential highest damage per round option you can have with eldritch blast/agonizing blast. for a two level investment. It's ridiculous. At least with pathfinder if you want to have power, you have to sacrifice power elsewhere because the classes are not as frontloaded as they are in 5e.. with the exception of possibly the Swashbuckler in PF

In 5e, you're welcome to multiclass, but it has to be for VERY specific reasons and you have to know what you're doing. Feats in 5e mean trading ASIs, which I feel is good. It means there are some excellent build opportunities, but they're not just going to be far-and-away OP like pathfinder builds are.


I hate how pathfinder has so much broken shit that if you WANT to play a pure class, you're actively hindering your performance. They should be balanced.

Again, 5e is far from balanced. Look at Fighters. Until recently, you'd nerf yourself if you didn't go for the battlemaster. Rune and echo knight probably alleviated this a little, but it took what, four years? Look at the ranger and the monk class that have been woefully underpowered from the systems inception. Ranger Only MILDLY improved after Tasha's.

Again, IDK where this is coming from. You have so many more spells you can choose from (most of the time) and you can have some really cool ability interactions. Meanwhile, pathfinder is just "cast 100 buffs and go fight" or "use your very limited wombo once or twice then resort to normal attacks."

Please, do give me a good example of a 'wombo combo' in Pathfinder, that you can do at most 1-2 times per day. As well as these 100 buffs, because in general. Buffs in Pathfinder don't stack like that.

Also, there's about a million more spells in pathfinder than in 5e, with a much wider variety of effects that can effect the battlefield your team, and the enemy team. Yes. Some are not as good as others. But that's also apparent in 5e. Not to mention the awful design philosophy there. "Yeah we know fireball is overpowered for its level, but it's *iconic* so it's OK" It's bloody ridiculous, and pretty much an actual quote by the developers so.. yeah they don't much care for balance. At least you have caster levels in Pathfinder that makes spells grow with you.

Then we also have healing. If someone goes down and are bleeding out, all you need is the one healing point and they're back up and ready to fight or run, and all you need is a long rest and your arm that was almost falling off is now all healed up. Whereas in pathfinder, you get at most your character level back from a nights rest It's oversimplified and it makes choice, as you say. Shallow.

Choice feels shallow in pathfinder. I can't speak on BG3, but at least in 5e I feel like I'm not just building shenanigans that make me a veritable god and am instead tailoring my playstyle just because I like the way it feels and the things happen to interact in some special way.

You say the choices are shallow and only good for 'shenanigans' Like a hexblade paladin isn't a stupidly strong option. Or my own favorite shenanigan. Sorclock.. the strongest choice there is shooting a cantrip.. then quicken that cantrip and doing it again. The major difference there being that it's so much easier to become stupidly OP in 5e than it is in Pathfinder.

[BeepBoo]

The most powerful classes in PF are single-class wizards/casters.. just like in 5e. You can make multiclass characters powerful, certainly. But most often, you won't. The general concensus however is that singleclass is the best for almost all classes. Conversely, in 5e you can get stupid powerboosts by taking single levels in classes.

Look, you and the poster who is also a pathfinder fan that I quoted about that can take it up amongst yourselves to figure out who is right, because you're both saying different things. I've played pathfinder and 3.5 like 10 times (10 sessions) total in my whole life. All I hear about is my friends who absolutely LOVE it talking about how they were level 5 dumping 200 damage onto every one of my friend's (who was the DM) creatures and absolutely dumpstering them with some stupid combo that they pulled off solo constantly. That was how they chose to play, and there were like 100 different ways to make it happen to the point where that DM stopped running pathfinder and moved exclusively to 5e.

At least with pathfinder if you want to have power, you have to sacrifice power elsewhere because the classes are not as frontloaded as they are in 5e.. with the exception of possibly the Swashbuckler in PF

Again, not from what I've heard.

Also, there's about a million more spells in pathfinder than in 5e

I don't know about that, but it seems like the amount you can have prepared at any one time is pretty similar to 5e. Also, if pathfinder has 500 spells but 20 only ever get used because that's all that's good and DND has 100 spells but still only 20 that get used... it doesn't matter how many extra spells exist. Flavor won't ever matter in a video game the same way it does in table top because you can't actually re-skin things or work out stuff with an actual DM.

Then we also have healing. If someone goes down and are bleeding out, all you need is the one healing point and they're back up and ready to fight or run, and all you need is a long rest and your arm that was almost falling off is now all healed up. Whereas in pathfinder, you get at most your character level back from a nights rest It's oversimplified and it makes choice, as you say. Shallow.

Deciding if you should rest or not isn't a choice I want to make anyways. The aspect of resting in general is retarded like I said earlier. It's just tedious, especially in WOTR. Just let me skip the cutscenes and banter. The characters are boring as-is.

[Onikaroshi]

How far into development are they though? Far as I've been following only Act 1 is available for testing in EA, and that release date doesn't leave a lot of time for an Act 2 and eventually Act 3, especially with the pace of which they are adding major content releases. Or are they not going to release the following acts in EA at all?
Been trying to stay away from this one until the full game releases so I don't really know how they are planning on releasing the remaining bulk.

Think they're only doing Act 1 in EA.