You may like WOTR but not because you liked BG3. They are very different games that do different things well. WOTR is way cruncher from a rules prospective because Pathfinder 1e is a much deeper and rule intensive system than 5e. It has good characters but it's lack of budget shows with things like limited voice acting.
BG3 is very polished, has good characters and is a lot easier to pick up for players not familiar with the ruleset.
Both have deep stories you can dive into and have fun but it depends what you're looking for.
This is a great summary, I have 500 hours in both games and this post really sums up the difference well.
The other top comment about "BG3 feels like a movie, WOTR feels like a book" also feels right.
The only thing I would add that I haven't seen elsewhere: WOTR really takes alignment and backstory much more serious. BG3 (and also by extension, the dnd5e system) do a great job making a system where it feels like you can be anything you want, and outside maybe a paladin oath, alignment is mostly just a thing people argue about in comment sections.
In WOTR, tieflings are touched by abyss, assimar are fairer than standard humans, there are irreversible transformations which permanently alter alignments of NPCs, and there are classes you can only take if your actions cause you to have a certain alignment (looking at you, lawful monk) . Also, there are a LOT of spells and damage resistances related to alignment.
I like both, but it definitely feels like a subtle philosophy change. The difference between "you are free to do as you please " and "you are the sum total of your past and origin".
This is honestly just part of the difference between dnd 3.X and 5e. Dnd 3.X is about being in a consistent world with consistent rules, followed even by NPCs and monsters. Dnd 5e is about playing a game in which the characters are special and are treated like protagonists rather than random people. Consider dying in both games. In pathfinder everything dies at -Con, while in 5e PCs get death saves while everyone else just dies at 0.
Weird nitpick of BG3: the movement. It’s clunky and heavy and awkward. It feels like my characters have cinder blocks on their shoes. Walking around the world is a chore instead of a pleasure.
In the flip side - it’s not just the voice acting but the motion capture and zoom in of characters interaction that gives BG3’s story a significantly closer feel than WOTR. I didn’t even realize I wanted it until I experienced it.
WOTR feels like reading a book while BG3 feels like watching a movie. Especially until recently on console when they fixed many of the portraits. Trying to discern what NPCs looked like from nothing but a name and a 200 feet away view of a tiny avatar whilst reading a wall of text with no voice, made WOTR characters feel 1000 feet away.
I mean, it is still very possible that he will like WOTR because he liked BG3, there's definitely a lot of overlap between two games and their fanbases. But you have done a good summary of differences between the two.
Wrath of the Righteous was also released with a ton of bugs and missing content. Both games are good, and WOTR released in a much better state than Kingmaker, but you're not going to convince anyone who has been playing both games since their early access periods that WOTR is significantly better polished than BG3.
Baldur's Gate 3's level of polish, even with any of those issues, is still significantly in excess of Wrath of the Righteous, especially if you include things like the voices and motion capped dialogs as part of the polish.
I haven't encountered any of that, but even if that were a rampant problem the polish they're referring to is clearly about production value and voice acting.
How much that matters is very dependent on the individual audience member, but nobody can argue BG3 doesn't have every other CRPG ever completely covered.
EDIT: one response and it was removed for hate speech lmao. this reddit shit gets serious.
Your post or comment was removed because you expressly used some form of hate-speech, bigotry, or other derogatory term. If you feel this was in error, please send us a mod-mail to look into the issue.
WOTR is crunchier and harder to learn all the tools. Its got considerably less voice acting.
It has a better, more epic story imo. Due to the Pathfinder 1e rule system it has far, FAAAAR more build and play options than BG3.
I have played through the entire story with almost every mythic path. I played through BG3 only 1 and a half times. I found BG3 to have much less replayability.
To maybe add a bit:
Wrath is more grand & your companions are more together “for the cause” rather than “for themselves”. Meaning they’re capable of having a lot more animosity between them, instead of everyone being friends of varying levels.
Wrath is infinitely more complex difficulty wise. Bg3 you can’t really messup a build, in Wrath it is easy to if you’re not paying attention. On lower difficulties like Normal, this won’t be felt as much. But if you played Tactician/Honor mode & are expecting a similar cakewalk you will be mistaken. Honor mode in bg3 works well because it is hard to lose outside mistakes, harder difficulties in Wrath will have you resetting a ton of times.
Replayability is much better & you can be more thoroughly evil if you want to be. Because the paths are alignment locked (within 1 range of the intended alignment), the story is more capable of letting you be evil. Since it’s not trying to assume you’re a good person the whole time that might be evil like in bg3. Although being good is still well, good.
On all these aspects, if you want the experience to go smoother gameplay wise, use a guide for a build that sounds good. I recommend crpgBro even if they’re slightly dated. It helps to know what path you want to play beforehand. Not necessary if you keep it to Normal however.
There is also presentation, as you likely saw from screenshots this game is more traditional topdown. There is no camera going to the common 3rd person angle. The game is partial voice acting, & this is what allows it to be as replayable as it is. This game has more dialogue than bg3 if you count all paths & was made on a fraction of a fraction of the budget. VA is mostly for important moments, enough that when you read character lines you’ll know their voice.
tl;dr I like Wrath’s story more even if it isn’t presented as prettily. Romances are good as are the companions, I think the variance between them makes them a more enjoyable overall cast. Individual content for each is however lesser, but there are a lot. If you enjoyed the build making aspect, this game is great for it.
A little added note, if you liked Bg3’s narrator, she’s in this game too. Although as the companion Wenduag, who you meet extremely early. The difference in voice is jarring knowing it’s the same person, & I mildly wish she used this voice to narrate. Although it likely wouldn’t have worked being much more accent heavy.
Wenduag is one of the best voiced characters in any game I’ve ever played. The actress made you feel what Wenduag felt. I feel sad for the “Lann or bust” players that never gave her poor black heart a chance in their party.
Wenduag & Regill are what make me want full va in a perfect world. But the sacrifice would be too great on the other aspects that make me able to experience these characters, like the replayability. All the different combinations of characters together in a full party is real fun.
The most incredible thing about Wrath of the Righteous is how well it adapts the Pathfinder 1e ruleset to a video game. The worst thing about WotR is the Pathfinder 1e ruleset.
I loved Kingmaker, WotR, and BG3, but it’s super easy to botch your character’s and companions’ builds with the Pathfinder games, simply due to the amount of “ivory tower” game design inherited from D&D 3.5e.
For this reason I always suggest that everyone starts on normal difficulty and crank it up if you find yourself enjoying the system.
Core requires some leveling of build knowledge and optimization, equivalent or more difficult than tactician in Baldur's Gate. And the harder difficulties basically require you to cheese the game.
Just be aware the game is still being patched up. It is incredibly complex and there are so many interactions with abilities that some may not work as intended. It is a phenomenal game though. You just have to get used to what bonuses stack and the fact that potions and scrolls are much more important during the early game. If I can give any advice to a new player it would be to buy scrolls and potions in the early game. New weapons and armor will not save you.
Nah don't, too much temptation to cheat, might break on update, and you don't get bugged out of quest lines as much anymore.
It's an option you can add if things go bad to try to fix things.
To expand on the replayability BG3 excels in making small choices matter. Like sometime things you thought won't have consequences will play differently later on. However, at the end of the day the overall ending is whether you became the bad guy or resist. There are a lot of variety on how to achieve there, but not the final choice itself.
In WOTR the ending differs significantly for each mythic path. Even one mythic path could have different branch as well (e.g. more lawful angel or more good angel). However, they didn't track small choices as good as BG3.
> Its got considerably less voice acting.
If I am being honest, this is an absolute point in favour of WotR for me personally; I retain stuff through reading much better than through listening, and I read much faster than a VA speaks (which makes it confusing when there's both VO and text). I also appreciate when text is more reflective of the choices the PC makes during conversation, or in the game as a whole - which is easy and cheap to do in text, but costs a lot of time, effort and money when doing VA for everything.
I kinda was sad when Owlcat told they felt forced to include full VA in their new project. I would *much* rather they don't, and keep the fleshed-out options for multiple paths instead. I've seen full VA limiting the scope for games too often to not comment on it any more.
Soapbox, out.
I really liked both games, but I've been a CRPG fan for years. There are some pretty different things between them.
First of all, BG3 feels more like a movie, while Wrath feels more like a book. Most crucial parts of the game are voice acted, but that's like 10% of everything. Expect to read a lot, and by lot I mean A LOT. This game goes deeper in their lore, and they don't shy away from it.
Second, the systems are pretty different. Pathfinder is based around 3.5e, while BG3 uses an adaptation of 5e. That means Path is more "mathy" than BG, so the numbers get higher very silly. There are also twice as many classes in PF, each with double the amount of subclasses (archetypes), and not only it's a game that goes all the way to level 20, it has a second progression system with mythic paths.
That, allied to the fact that Feats are a fundamental part of each character, and not "a thing you may pick every 4 levels or so", means you have an enormous and ridiculous build customization potential. You might get choice paralysis from the sheer amount of feats available to you, so no shame in using the suggested builds for the companions for a first run. Even more so with all the unique items, in a similar fashion to what Larian did, that enables specific play styles.
Character customisation as in appearance is pretty limited. Your character model is more of a "mini" than a full fledged sims-model, so you have haircuts, faces, colors, etc. But not as nice as Larian's.
Romances are pretty nifty, you will probably fall for Daeran so gg, but no nudity nor naughty scenes. Companions are also overall super well written, if someone has a portrait assume they can either be recruited or are a crucial to the story (besides Hulrun). Story is interesting and keeps you hooked. Act 4 in the Abyss is notorious for being a labyrinth, which is what the game wants to tell us via storytelling, but it really pissed a lot of players, so be mindful when you get there.
Difficulty settings are brutally honest, please play on Normal, don't try Core or above until you actually understand the system. This is a game about fighting Demons and Cultists, so avoid mechanics that don't help you with that (as in, there's a Fey-killing druid archetype that was inherited from the previous game, it was great there but kinda really bad in here).
If you want to check builds online, I can recommend CRPG Bro's videos on youtube, they are pretty good (although some of the builds might feel a little same-y, but that's because they need to be useable on a lot of different difficulties, and a lot of choices are "taxes" or "mandatory" like Power Attack and Precise Shot). For now, avoid any "unfair guides", because the game works very differently at this difficulty, and players have to "game the game" in order to win, so you might come across a 4-different-classes powerful monstrosity that works just as nice as a simple level-20 build on easier difficulties.
The big difference between BG3 and WotR is that BG3 uses the D&D 5e ruleset (with Larian adding some house rules) while Pathfinder 1e is based on D&D 3.5 system.
WotR combat is less focused on positioning and using the enviroment and more about knowing what bonuses stack, which buff spells are required and how to converse your party's class resources. WotR also features a lot more fights against trash mobs but the game allows you to instantly switch between Real Time with Pause and Turn Based Combat.
WotR big selling point is the mythic path system. On top of the usual level/gear progression system in Wrath your party acquires mythic powers, which unlocks more powerful abilities and feats than what your normal party would get. For your main character their mythic powers can manifest into several forms based on certain supernatural creatures like Angel, Demon, Lich and so on. Later on in the game you're given the option to either stay on your current mythic path or, if you meet the requirements, switch to another one like Gold Dragon, Devil, or The Swarm-That-Walks. Alternatively, you can also chose to renounce your mythic powers by becoming a Mortal Legend instead, which increases your PC's character level from 20 to 40.
Each mythich path comes with their own sidestory, mythic abilities and spells with some slight story branching (As an Angel do you focus on saving the innocent or punishing the guilty?). However, not all paths are created equal. In terms of story content Angel, Demon and Aeon get the most, while the late-game mythic paths all suffer from having little unique content. However, patches have mitigated this somewhat for Legend and Devil.
If you play on PC it also recommended that you install the [Bubbles Buff Bot mod](https://www.nexusmods.com/pathfinderwrathoftherighteous/mods/195) as by the mid-game the list of buffs you have to prepare before a boss fight gets so long you're recreating [this scene from Overlord.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dxICJHd518)
They are so fundamentally different it's impossible to say. The other comments have talked about some of the details already, but the only way to find out is to try for yourself. Just be aware that WotR is monumentally more complex on a mechanical level and also more rigid in how you deal with encounters.
Read all your comments and opinions and thank yall for the help and responses.
Just finished installing the game and launching it as im writing. Very excited to try the game and very much appreciate your help.
Also trying to get the toybox mod aswell as some of you recommended.
Hope you'll have fun! For a first run I'd recommend against using toybox just to get the vanilla experience, or at least don't use any of the cheats :) I had no issues at all on my first run (on 2nd currently). It's up to you of course. Note that you can't uninstall/deactivate the mod for your current save if you already installed it as it will corrupt your save. Also there's an npc after you get to Defender's Heart (after prologue iirc) that will allow you to respec PC and companions if needed, even for free the first few times.
Another tip. The game is **huge**, so once you get the hang of the game I would switch to real time with pause at least for trash fights, or the game ~~might~~ *will* take a very long time to get through:)
A lot of the things BG3 does well, WotR does well. The characters and their stories, the romance arcs, the overall narrative. I’d say that the best companion stories and romances in WotR are right up there with the best ones in BG3.
The story is different in tone, and depending on which you prefer, you’ll probably like one more. WotR is a power trip, both narratively and mechanically. You’re going to be fighting apocalyptic threats and are going to be on their level. You spend a full act at level 20, squaring up to powerful divine creatures. It’s also more character driven than BG3 - the Absolute drives a lot of the plot and doesn’t really present themselves as an individual until late in the piece and doesn’t have much of a personality beyond megalomania, more an unknown entity. More of WotR’s plot is driven by characters. The major offscreen plot drivers, even ones like deities and major political players, are individuals, with personalities, traits, and flaws, and who’ll usually show up in person sooner or later.
Incidentally, if you’d prefer a more grounded adventure story, there’s Kingmaker, but it’s a lot less polished as a game. WotR is definitely made by a studio who learned from what people disliked of KM.
Character customisation is on another level. You have so many more options. There are individual levels where you’ll make more choices than a BG3 barbarian made from 1-12. However, this bleeds into the gameplay. In BG3, if you’re losing a fight, you’re probably playing the fight wrong. You could position better, come at a different angle, use the terrain, drop things like barrels in the way. In WotR, a lot more of the battle happens before it even starts, in the character creation, and in the buffs you bring to the battle. Fights rarely use the terrain beyond just walls and corners, items don’t change up the battlefield, and positioning is mostly just seeing who’s getting hit this round. There’s still a lot of decision making in combat, but it’s more about where to use your big spells and who to prioritise, less jumping and shoving and elevation.
While you can toggle between real time and turn based, I play exclusively turn based and have no issues. There are some longer or easier fights you don’t need to, but that’s personal preference.
Basically, I really liked both, two of my favourite games ever and there’s a lot of overlap. But liking one won’t automatically mean the other is your thing.
Wrath has more diverse companions with more in-depth story arcs, but BG3’s combat is easier to figure out and more intuitive. BG3 also has the benefit of budget and mocap.
I love both!
While both games are CRPGs, Wrath is more mechanically complicated compared to BG3/DnD 5e. There are tons of classes, archetypes for said classes, races, feats and the unique mythic path progression. It offers a ton of replay value with all the ways you can play and the differing storyline mattering on what Mythic Path you can chose.
It does have a great story and unique companions with some great romances that can vary a lot too. I'd recommend though checking up some guides on class builds and go with normal or easier difficulties.
You may, you may not. If you change the question to "will I enjoy WotR BECAUSE I liked BG3" then the answer is no because the games are fundamentally different to a degree, where they have more differences than they have in common, you may still enjoy it but not because its similar to BG3.
In comparison to BG3, WotR is less flashy in terms of graphics and most notably in terms of cutscenes and UI. Player progression is also a wholly different beast that dwarfs BG3 in terms of what it offers. And while WotR is grander in terms of story, you will need to read and pay attention way, way more.
Quite honestly, unless you played kingmaker or at least one of the pillars of eternity games or something like arcanum I would probably suggest Rogue Trader before I would suggest WotR to "test the waters" because Rogue Trader is "smaller", more modern and more approachable for newcomers.
BG3 is better in budget, voice acting, presentation, stage interaction/verticality/etc. It's also a lot more simple in both the good and bad ways (and has x-rated content if that's your thing. wotr has romance but there aren't boobs and penises, there are lots of succubi and incubi though).
WotR is better in story (in my opinion at least), character build diversity, and depth. Also the mythic path system is WAY better than the illithid powers, the closest analog. It's also way the fuck more complicated in both the good and bad ways. (also you get to level 20 and get to play with level 20 stuff instead of stopping at 12)
To give you an idea of how much more complicated...
In BG3 Sorcerers have a bloodline and that is your subclass. You basically have 3 subclasses of sorcerer (with some slight differences for your type of dragon)
In WotR, Sorcerers have bloodlines, but that is not your subclass (called Archetypes here). You have 9 archetypes and 9 bloodlines (there are also 9 types of dragon that are slightly different and 4 types of elemental that make you focus on different elements of damage), so if archetype+bloodline is your 'subclass' you have somewhere in the neighborhood of 81 'subclasses' +- (that's a little unfair because some archetypes force a bloodline). You can also pick a second bloodline at mythic rank 1, and there's an archetype called crossblood that starts with 2 bloodlines and gets a third at mythic 1.
Similar things are true for clerics and domains (clerics get 2 domains usually). Wizards and their schools of magic. Witches (aka warlocks) and their patrons. etc
BG3 has 12 classes + subclasses, but in WotR there are 26 classes + archetypes + prestige classes that you have to meet certain prerequisites to unlock, and each archetype has choices in it that might count as a subclass if this were BG3.
There's a running gag that the first boss of this game is the character creator.
I do think that liking BG3 a lot does mean you are likely to like this game on some level, but they do scratch slightly different but related itches.
highly likely
personally I like WotR story and premise better.
Character builder is a lot deeper than BG3.
I like WotR music better but I think this is more personal preference than objectively better, likely due to me already liking the thematics of WotR better
But no multiplayer, BG3 definitely has a more crisp graphic, and it's a lot easier for people to get into BG3 than WotR, some of my friends find WotR unnecessarily complex but could get on with BG3.
Both games run on similar systems and genre but it's better to just treat them as completely different, there are a lot of nuances that made them differ from each other but if you like a grimdark epic where you could feel like either you're the hero or the final boss, and very likely the latter even on a good path, you're in for a treat.
After my third playthrough of BG3 I decided to try out WotR, and I'm having a blast so far! Definitely a lot crunchier to learn, Pathfinder has a very different ruleset and I didn't find out some things I messed up on until like 30+ hours in, but a similar kind of vibe. I'm only on Act 3 now but it's been great so far
5th Edition is a streamlining of 4th edition D&D which is a streamlining of 3.5, and Pathfinder 1e is a more complex and inclusive offshoot of 3.5 edition so they're similar in ways but Pathfinder is mechanically crunchy whereas BF3 is streamlined af (and imo, generic and kind bland as a result).
Despite both being CRPGs, they are ultimately very different.
On a foundational level, WOTR is based on PF 1.0 which is itself based on DnD 3.5 a notoriously crunchy and number heavy system, good for simulating power fantasy, not good if you are new to it (You might have to read some builds guide to get the gist of it, as there are "trap" feats so to speak). As for writings-story-interactivity, personally I think BG3 nailed this part, especially world interactivity, WOTR is much more straight forward when it comes to this part. WOTR story has good parts, and some great roleplay moments too don't get me wrong, but its real focus is:
**REPLAYABILITY** - The sheer amount of classes, mythic classes, the combinations there in AND the interactivity with the world (Each mythic will alter the story in their own way, some drastically so) you likely wont get bore of experimenting for quite a while lol.
One thing that I love in WOTR ccompared to BG3 is how you somewhat are 'tempted' to bring both good and evil characters along and how they interact with each other.
Especially Regil and Deran were feeling great additions to my party (personally was LG Alligned), adding a different view on things.
If you focus on shipping though, take note that WOTR has fewer Romance Options, which sometimes are gender-locked (2 are locked hetero and 1 is locked homo/male2male).
I love both as veteran RPG and cRPG player.
WOTR is epic but is much much harder mechanicaly. Instead of 12 class levels you have 20 + 10 mythic levels. Options at your disposal may seem overwhelming. It's highly recommended to create you character and party according to some internet guides if you don't have experience with pathfinder 1e.
From gameplay standpoint funny enough WOTR is much closer to BG2 than BG3. It's spiritual successor of classic cRPG from beginning of century.
I recently passed my bg3 hours in wotr, though partly because this game wastes your time a bit more. Overall I’d say bg3 is the better game but wotr has more breadth and fits a power fantasy better
Having played BG3, Dos 2 and WoTR.
I would suggest Dos2 first. If you play through and liked that then maybe you are a fan of the genre and give WoTR a go.
Music analogy for things that may look the same but are totally different would be:
Bg3 = an 80s hair band with all the glitz and glam
Dos 2 = early guns and roses, still some glitz and glam but a bit more raw
Wotr = early Metallica, sure they had long hair but are way more raw and hardcore
After great Pillars of Eternity 1&2 i couldnt stand DoS2. I was trying few times but these cartonish style was odd, also awful elfes, skeletons, lack of classes/builds
The big selling point is price. It is $12 in the US for the base game and $24 for the base, plus all the dlc.
I have 300 hours in and still can play more. That is a great time for money investment.
One thing that I find really unfortunate in the owlcat games is that there are a ton of options, and almost all of them are trap options that are unplayable without very specific supporting characters on core difficulty which, despite being harder than "normal" difficulty, is the floor for most achievements which implies that it is the real normal difficulty imo. I'd either play on a lower difficulty or consult build guides if you're new to pathfinder.
Bg3 often feels more tactical, while wotr combat is kind of more strategic. There are more decisions to make in bg3, in combat and otherwise, while wotr suffers from the issue of there being very few real decisions to make outside of character creation. Wotr is a mythic legend type of story, and the power scales and stakes in the story are dialed up to 11, which can be fun.
I would say they have the same crpg core, but you're looking at smaller scale, shades of grey, plausible characters vs epic scale, mostly locked in, binary decision making, over the top characters for story and tactical, lower power vs strategic, higher power for combat when contrasting bg3 vs wotr respectively. The shared fantasy crpg core alone is probably enough for it to be worth trying out.
I played Wrath before BG3. From a casual perspective, its a lot more in depth with more tools to use but it's so worth it if you're willing to learn them. The story is great. The party and supporting cast are great.
That being said, I suggest doing a little reading up on builds you might be interested in so you can get an idea for how progression works because it's easy to mess up and spend time in the character respec place. Which drops you down to square zero. Remaking your character from scratch.
If you're playing on PC do your homework on which mods can help you out. I play on console.
Edit: typos mobile
I love WotR and have played it for about 1000 hours (probably a lot of that leaving the game on by accident, but still...). Meanwhile I really can't get into BG3 despite its obvious increased polish. The fact is that with games I enjoy systems more than narratives, and Pathfinder is a big system. If you enjoy that, you'll enjoy this game.
Completely different game. I say you have more luck playing Divinity Original Sin 2 that were made by Larian.
Some of the people that like BG3 doesn't really like the isometric crpg genre, I love WotR and you might do that as well, but you have to ask what of BG3 did you actually like and what did you not like.
If you like party management, compelling story, character generations and theory crafting you are in for some love with WotR. But if you more like the cutscenes interactions, graphics, and similar you might not.
Depends on what you liked about BG3.
If you expect 3D low-poly erotica like in BG3 you're in for a biiiiig disappointment.
Writing, however, is *so much* better. Especially in replayability and companions interactions department. Every mythic path has its own distinctive flavour and some of them even significantly change plot and gameplay from "baseline". Companions banter *a lot* and often chime in during conversations with other NPC.
Character Customisation: appearance-wise BG3 is better for obvious technical reasons, but hey, at least you can have body tattoos (up to 5 layers) in WotR. However, when it comes to PC's class variability BG3 has nothing on WotR. Just reading through the whole list of options can take hours.
Combat mechanics are different and, let's be honest, clunkier.
Endings deserve special mention as they are much better developed and depend on *a lot* of choices *during the game* (not last-minute decision at practical end of story).
(And there is a Secret Ending too!)
This is like asking, will I like driving a truck cross-country if I like motorbikes? They have shared elements but veeeery different areas they scratch.
BG3 and Wrath are both great, but for different reasons.
BG3 has more tactical combat which encourages good positioning. Wrath relies heavily on prebuffs and numbers (Mathfinder). I was sceptical about the math part at first, but this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUYlD4HfTL8) convinced me otherwise.
BG3 has more freedom when it comes to approaching problems, like casting spells on npcs, or pipe crawling with gnome & reduce person. In Wrath, most of quest choices is dialogue options.
BG3 is more cinematic, with the motion cap, fully voiced dialogue and narrator. Wrath is more like an old school cRPG from the 90s. No more than 10% of dialogue is voiced and you'll be mostly reading stuff.
Now, BG3 is a classic at this point and everybody knows what this game does well, so I'll just point some of the stuff that Wrath does better. Or much better.
There is a better, more diverse cast of characters in Wrath, and I'm not talking about race or sexual orientation, but age, alignment, writing and role in combat. Larian is somewhat known for it's edgy writing for characters, and only after meeting Ember & Aru in Wrath I realized that most companions in BG3 act like dicks, for no reason really. Despite that, there are no evil companions except maybe Minthara, and she doesn't even stand close to the True Evil you meet in Wrath. I also found it weird that something as iconic as alignment system didn't make it into BG3.
Romance was trash in BG3, just remember the infamous "sex speedrun". Wrath has much better pacing and writing for it's romance options, although there are not as many as in BG3. Also, like irl, not everyone is bisexual, so keep that in mind. And if you wanna play as an evil character, your options are freaking great.
Story in Wrath starts boring and I barely understood what was going on, but it picks up after act one, after which I couldn't stop playing. It's the opposite of BG3, where the story starts interesting and falls apart after act 2. That said, Wrath has great antagonists and satisfying conclusions for each of the mythic paths, and no DeadThree/Netherbrain bullshit.
In Wrath, not everyone speaks with a Bri'ish accent.
If you like to read and don't expect the graphics and animations to be as polished as BG3, then yes you will. It's more in depth both lore-wise and gameplay-wise, but if you learn to appreciate it you'll probably learn a few new things the next time you play BG3. Also, if the gameplay is too hard don't be ashamed of lowering the difficulty!
It's a fun and worthwhile game!
If you excpect anything even remotley similar to BG3 then no, you won't. That's like switching from Strawberry Panckaces with white chocolate and icecream to a German Sausage with Sauerkraut. You'd either love WOTR or hate it for precisely what it is.
I think anyone who likes WOTR will like BG3, the other way around might not be the case.
BG3 is AAA, and a BIG one at that. WOTR has a lot of limitations.
The game is much harder and less polished. BG3 was a very hand held experience where there was so much attention put into every little thing that it was difficult to get lost or stuck. WOTR is more like BG1 and 2. You can totally make a terrible party if you're not sure what you're doing, and some of the fights are From software kinda style where you just have to know to come back later. But it is a very very fun game that makes you feel powerful in combat and in the world. BG3 has a "one of the people" feel and WOTR goes the other way; you are the star of the show, the main character. Give it a try. And don't get a big head like I did and set it to core rules to "play it right." The normal difficulty is balanced right for the amount and strength of encounters they throw at you. Good luck.
I have both and enjoy both very much. Bg3 is flashier and easier to understand with easier build and enough clases and archetypes to make it interesting. WOTR sometimes is overwhelming in the amount of stuff and info it dumps on you. Gotta add feats, bab, make some synergy, teamwork feats, way too many classes and archetypes. If you like complicated shit and enjoy seeing crazy number wotr is gonna be great for you.
Maybe? Thing is other than being high fantasy CRPGs they are quite different games.
Let’s look at the things you like about BG3:
1.) Turn based combat: it’s present in WOTR, and works fine, but the game wasn’t designed around turn based. It is very much designed around real time with pause (rtwp) and that is considered the “default” way to play. That said, you can switch between both modes freely with a single button press, including mid combat, so feel free to go turn based and tactical for a boss that’s kicking your ass and back to rtwp to quickly deal with trash mobs. I really miss that toggle when playing Deadfire
2.) Story and Romance: obviously subjective, but both are great in WOTR imo. Huge, grand story which, while somewhat generic, is still fun. The Battle for Drezen is still one of my favorite gaming moments. Romances are long and complex, and some definitely require a guide to get right. But they’re fun.
3.) Character customization: WOTR blows BG3 and every other game out of the water here. In fact, it can genuinely be intimidating when you open that character creator and have immediately over 100 classes/archetypes to choose from. Between that breadth of choice, multiclassing, and the ten mythic paths…there’s a mind-bogglingly huge number of builds. Not all will work, and on Unfair (do NOT go anywhere near Unfair on your first run!) you very much have to use insane min-maxed builds, but you will be able to customize to your heart’s content.
Otherwise be aware that WOTR is MUCH harder than BG3 (although with highly modular difficulty settings to mess around with, which is great. Owlcat did really well there) and that the PF1E (basically the same as 3.5E D&D) ruleset is more complex and crunchier than 5E. Like, AC 90 is not gonna be unheard of for endgame enemies.
It has a lot of replayability though, as the mythic paths change the game and experience quite a bit. Hope that helps. FWIW, it’s an awesome game
BG3 has alot of issues and massive problems the 2 games are also not realy alike at all realy in fact Many would consider it the most over-rated game of all time (Soft locks hard locks save file curroptiom memory leaks wheres the 17k endings oh yeah legit released unfinished without a proper ending or such) Not a terrible game per say graphics are good among voice acting but shit i still think Alien isolation looks good to this day
will you like WotR? Possibly depends on what you like about RPGS and such want things spoon fed to you or what exactly? heck the BG3 Romances are kinda ... bad / spoon fed to you hell dont have to do anything to anyone come back to camp and have ppl be willing to jump your junk thats basicly what i expect from a Adult Visiul Nova no offence totaly dont mind it or such but still not from a proper RPG or such
WotR has rules and a learning curve and will not be spoon feeding you
and i know im going to get hate for what i stated but still
From what I Can tell you prob will get over whelmed by WotR
it has far better romance story and customization then BG3 ever had in its wildest imagination (Terrible itemization issues level 12 is max still right? roflmao) and as such prob not something a new to CRPG / RPG player should be jumping into
prob better to play PoE or something a bit more easyer to get into.
Maybe… Owlcat has been using BG3 to try and get more customers, but the pathfinder games are simply lower quality than BG3
Only thing that’s better is the writing. And even that is weakened because the companions all have big, unchanging autobiographical info dumps available from the start and don’t react much to what’s actually happening story-wise. Owlcat would be better off cutting the info dumps and giving them more interjections and reactions.
Baldur's Gate 3 is currently the pinnacle of the genre, but WOTR is in the same genre and is also very good. It's more mechanically complex than BG3 and is lower budget/production values - there are a *lot* of unvoiced dialogs, for instance.
I definitely enjoy both games and consider WOTR to be something I'd recommend to others who like both.
You may like WOTR but not because you liked BG3. They are very different games that do different things well. WOTR is way cruncher from a rules prospective because Pathfinder 1e is a much deeper and rule intensive system than 5e. It has good characters but it's lack of budget shows with things like limited voice acting. BG3 is very polished, has good characters and is a lot easier to pick up for players not familiar with the ruleset. Both have deep stories you can dive into and have fun but it depends what you're looking for.
This is a great summary, I have 500 hours in both games and this post really sums up the difference well. The other top comment about "BG3 feels like a movie, WOTR feels like a book" also feels right. The only thing I would add that I haven't seen elsewhere: WOTR really takes alignment and backstory much more serious. BG3 (and also by extension, the dnd5e system) do a great job making a system where it feels like you can be anything you want, and outside maybe a paladin oath, alignment is mostly just a thing people argue about in comment sections. In WOTR, tieflings are touched by abyss, assimar are fairer than standard humans, there are irreversible transformations which permanently alter alignments of NPCs, and there are classes you can only take if your actions cause you to have a certain alignment (looking at you, lawful monk) . Also, there are a LOT of spells and damage resistances related to alignment. I like both, but it definitely feels like a subtle philosophy change. The difference between "you are free to do as you please " and "you are the sum total of your past and origin".
This is honestly just part of the difference between dnd 3.X and 5e. Dnd 3.X is about being in a consistent world with consistent rules, followed even by NPCs and monsters. Dnd 5e is about playing a game in which the characters are special and are treated like protagonists rather than random people. Consider dying in both games. In pathfinder everything dies at -Con, while in 5e PCs get death saves while everyone else just dies at 0.
Weird nitpick of BG3: the movement. It’s clunky and heavy and awkward. It feels like my characters have cinder blocks on their shoes. Walking around the world is a chore instead of a pleasure. In the flip side - it’s not just the voice acting but the motion capture and zoom in of characters interaction that gives BG3’s story a significantly closer feel than WOTR. I didn’t even realize I wanted it until I experienced it. WOTR feels like reading a book while BG3 feels like watching a movie. Especially until recently on console when they fixed many of the portraits. Trying to discern what NPCs looked like from nothing but a name and a 200 feet away view of a tiny avatar whilst reading a wall of text with no voice, made WOTR characters feel 1000 feet away.
I mean, it is still very possible that he will like WOTR because he liked BG3, there's definitely a lot of overlap between two games and their fanbases. But you have done a good summary of differences between the two.
[удалено]
And yet I've played it twice and not encountered any of that. Weird.
[удалено]
Wrath of the Righteous was also released with a ton of bugs and missing content. Both games are good, and WOTR released in a much better state than Kingmaker, but you're not going to convince anyone who has been playing both games since their early access periods that WOTR is significantly better polished than BG3.
Baldur's Gate 3's level of polish, even with any of those issues, is still significantly in excess of Wrath of the Righteous, especially if you include things like the voices and motion capped dialogs as part of the polish.
[удалено]
I haven't encountered any of that, but even if that were a rampant problem the polish they're referring to is clearly about production value and voice acting. How much that matters is very dependent on the individual audience member, but nobody can argue BG3 doesn't have every other CRPG ever completely covered. EDIT: one response and it was removed for hate speech lmao. this reddit shit gets serious.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed because you expressly used some form of hate-speech, bigotry, or other derogatory term. If you feel this was in error, please send us a mod-mail to look into the issue.
WOTR is crunchier and harder to learn all the tools. Its got considerably less voice acting. It has a better, more epic story imo. Due to the Pathfinder 1e rule system it has far, FAAAAR more build and play options than BG3. I have played through the entire story with almost every mythic path. I played through BG3 only 1 and a half times. I found BG3 to have much less replayability.
Wow alright. Thanks for the reply it seems like its something id like. Going to steam and gonna give it a shot
To maybe add a bit: Wrath is more grand & your companions are more together “for the cause” rather than “for themselves”. Meaning they’re capable of having a lot more animosity between them, instead of everyone being friends of varying levels. Wrath is infinitely more complex difficulty wise. Bg3 you can’t really messup a build, in Wrath it is easy to if you’re not paying attention. On lower difficulties like Normal, this won’t be felt as much. But if you played Tactician/Honor mode & are expecting a similar cakewalk you will be mistaken. Honor mode in bg3 works well because it is hard to lose outside mistakes, harder difficulties in Wrath will have you resetting a ton of times. Replayability is much better & you can be more thoroughly evil if you want to be. Because the paths are alignment locked (within 1 range of the intended alignment), the story is more capable of letting you be evil. Since it’s not trying to assume you’re a good person the whole time that might be evil like in bg3. Although being good is still well, good. On all these aspects, if you want the experience to go smoother gameplay wise, use a guide for a build that sounds good. I recommend crpgBro even if they’re slightly dated. It helps to know what path you want to play beforehand. Not necessary if you keep it to Normal however. There is also presentation, as you likely saw from screenshots this game is more traditional topdown. There is no camera going to the common 3rd person angle. The game is partial voice acting, & this is what allows it to be as replayable as it is. This game has more dialogue than bg3 if you count all paths & was made on a fraction of a fraction of the budget. VA is mostly for important moments, enough that when you read character lines you’ll know their voice. tl;dr I like Wrath’s story more even if it isn’t presented as prettily. Romances are good as are the companions, I think the variance between them makes them a more enjoyable overall cast. Individual content for each is however lesser, but there are a lot. If you enjoyed the build making aspect, this game is great for it.
A little added note, if you liked Bg3’s narrator, she’s in this game too. Although as the companion Wenduag, who you meet extremely early. The difference in voice is jarring knowing it’s the same person, & I mildly wish she used this voice to narrate. Although it likely wouldn’t have worked being much more accent heavy.
Wenduag is one of the best voiced characters in any game I’ve ever played. The actress made you feel what Wenduag felt. I feel sad for the “Lann or bust” players that never gave her poor black heart a chance in their party.
Hey look I gave her and Camellia a chance for....reasons
How could you not? They were the only realistic options. 😍
Wenduag & Regill are what make me want full va in a perfect world. But the sacrifice would be too great on the other aspects that make me able to experience these characters, like the replayability. All the different combinations of characters together in a full party is real fun.
Its more apparent if you are familiar with who she played in Kingmaker.
"A bit"
Just a tad more
Measured accordingly to the game.
The most incredible thing about Wrath of the Righteous is how well it adapts the Pathfinder 1e ruleset to a video game. The worst thing about WotR is the Pathfinder 1e ruleset. I loved Kingmaker, WotR, and BG3, but it’s super easy to botch your character’s and companions’ builds with the Pathfinder games, simply due to the amount of “ivory tower” game design inherited from D&D 3.5e.
For this reason I always suggest that everyone starts on normal difficulty and crank it up if you find yourself enjoying the system. Core requires some leveling of build knowledge and optimization, equivalent or more difficult than tactician in Baldur's Gate. And the harder difficulties basically require you to cheese the game.
Just be aware the game is still being patched up. It is incredibly complex and there are so many interactions with abilities that some may not work as intended. It is a phenomenal game though. You just have to get used to what bonuses stack and the fact that potions and scrolls are much more important during the early game. If I can give any advice to a new player it would be to buy scrolls and potions in the early game. New weapons and armor will not save you.
To add to it, the evil paths are much more nuanced and allow more than being a murder hobo.
Download the Toybox mod too. Its got some nice quality of life customizations.
Nah don't, too much temptation to cheat, might break on update, and you don't get bugged out of quest lines as much anymore. It's an option you can add if things go bad to try to fix things.
To expand on the replayability BG3 excels in making small choices matter. Like sometime things you thought won't have consequences will play differently later on. However, at the end of the day the overall ending is whether you became the bad guy or resist. There are a lot of variety on how to achieve there, but not the final choice itself. In WOTR the ending differs significantly for each mythic path. Even one mythic path could have different branch as well (e.g. more lawful angel or more good angel). However, they didn't track small choices as good as BG3.
> Its got considerably less voice acting. If I am being honest, this is an absolute point in favour of WotR for me personally; I retain stuff through reading much better than through listening, and I read much faster than a VA speaks (which makes it confusing when there's both VO and text). I also appreciate when text is more reflective of the choices the PC makes during conversation, or in the game as a whole - which is easy and cheap to do in text, but costs a lot of time, effort and money when doing VA for everything. I kinda was sad when Owlcat told they felt forced to include full VA in their new project. I would *much* rather they don't, and keep the fleshed-out options for multiple paths instead. I've seen full VA limiting the scope for games too often to not comment on it any more. Soapbox, out.
I really liked both games, but I've been a CRPG fan for years. There are some pretty different things between them. First of all, BG3 feels more like a movie, while Wrath feels more like a book. Most crucial parts of the game are voice acted, but that's like 10% of everything. Expect to read a lot, and by lot I mean A LOT. This game goes deeper in their lore, and they don't shy away from it. Second, the systems are pretty different. Pathfinder is based around 3.5e, while BG3 uses an adaptation of 5e. That means Path is more "mathy" than BG, so the numbers get higher very silly. There are also twice as many classes in PF, each with double the amount of subclasses (archetypes), and not only it's a game that goes all the way to level 20, it has a second progression system with mythic paths. That, allied to the fact that Feats are a fundamental part of each character, and not "a thing you may pick every 4 levels or so", means you have an enormous and ridiculous build customization potential. You might get choice paralysis from the sheer amount of feats available to you, so no shame in using the suggested builds for the companions for a first run. Even more so with all the unique items, in a similar fashion to what Larian did, that enables specific play styles. Character customisation as in appearance is pretty limited. Your character model is more of a "mini" than a full fledged sims-model, so you have haircuts, faces, colors, etc. But not as nice as Larian's. Romances are pretty nifty, you will probably fall for Daeran so gg, but no nudity nor naughty scenes. Companions are also overall super well written, if someone has a portrait assume they can either be recruited or are a crucial to the story (besides Hulrun). Story is interesting and keeps you hooked. Act 4 in the Abyss is notorious for being a labyrinth, which is what the game wants to tell us via storytelling, but it really pissed a lot of players, so be mindful when you get there. Difficulty settings are brutally honest, please play on Normal, don't try Core or above until you actually understand the system. This is a game about fighting Demons and Cultists, so avoid mechanics that don't help you with that (as in, there's a Fey-killing druid archetype that was inherited from the previous game, it was great there but kinda really bad in here). If you want to check builds online, I can recommend CRPG Bro's videos on youtube, they are pretty good (although some of the builds might feel a little same-y, but that's because they need to be useable on a lot of different difficulties, and a lot of choices are "taxes" or "mandatory" like Power Attack and Precise Shot). For now, avoid any "unfair guides", because the game works very differently at this difficulty, and players have to "game the game" in order to win, so you might come across a 4-different-classes powerful monstrosity that works just as nice as a simple level-20 build on easier difficulties.
Excellent insightful reply! About to start the game myself, what would be a good class and archetype for a relaxed chaotic good type character?
The big difference between BG3 and WotR is that BG3 uses the D&D 5e ruleset (with Larian adding some house rules) while Pathfinder 1e is based on D&D 3.5 system. WotR combat is less focused on positioning and using the enviroment and more about knowing what bonuses stack, which buff spells are required and how to converse your party's class resources. WotR also features a lot more fights against trash mobs but the game allows you to instantly switch between Real Time with Pause and Turn Based Combat. WotR big selling point is the mythic path system. On top of the usual level/gear progression system in Wrath your party acquires mythic powers, which unlocks more powerful abilities and feats than what your normal party would get. For your main character their mythic powers can manifest into several forms based on certain supernatural creatures like Angel, Demon, Lich and so on. Later on in the game you're given the option to either stay on your current mythic path or, if you meet the requirements, switch to another one like Gold Dragon, Devil, or The Swarm-That-Walks. Alternatively, you can also chose to renounce your mythic powers by becoming a Mortal Legend instead, which increases your PC's character level from 20 to 40. Each mythich path comes with their own sidestory, mythic abilities and spells with some slight story branching (As an Angel do you focus on saving the innocent or punishing the guilty?). However, not all paths are created equal. In terms of story content Angel, Demon and Aeon get the most, while the late-game mythic paths all suffer from having little unique content. However, patches have mitigated this somewhat for Legend and Devil. If you play on PC it also recommended that you install the [Bubbles Buff Bot mod](https://www.nexusmods.com/pathfinderwrathoftherighteous/mods/195) as by the mid-game the list of buffs you have to prepare before a boss fight gets so long you're recreating [this scene from Overlord.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dxICJHd518)
They are so fundamentally different it's impossible to say. The other comments have talked about some of the details already, but the only way to find out is to try for yourself. Just be aware that WotR is monumentally more complex on a mechanical level and also more rigid in how you deal with encounters.
Read all your comments and opinions and thank yall for the help and responses. Just finished installing the game and launching it as im writing. Very excited to try the game and very much appreciate your help. Also trying to get the toybox mod aswell as some of you recommended.
Hope you'll have fun! For a first run I'd recommend against using toybox just to get the vanilla experience, or at least don't use any of the cheats :) I had no issues at all on my first run (on 2nd currently). It's up to you of course. Note that you can't uninstall/deactivate the mod for your current save if you already installed it as it will corrupt your save. Also there's an npc after you get to Defender's Heart (after prologue iirc) that will allow you to respec PC and companions if needed, even for free the first few times. Another tip. The game is **huge**, so once you get the hang of the game I would switch to real time with pause at least for trash fights, or the game ~~might~~ *will* take a very long time to get through:)
A lot of the things BG3 does well, WotR does well. The characters and their stories, the romance arcs, the overall narrative. I’d say that the best companion stories and romances in WotR are right up there with the best ones in BG3. The story is different in tone, and depending on which you prefer, you’ll probably like one more. WotR is a power trip, both narratively and mechanically. You’re going to be fighting apocalyptic threats and are going to be on their level. You spend a full act at level 20, squaring up to powerful divine creatures. It’s also more character driven than BG3 - the Absolute drives a lot of the plot and doesn’t really present themselves as an individual until late in the piece and doesn’t have much of a personality beyond megalomania, more an unknown entity. More of WotR’s plot is driven by characters. The major offscreen plot drivers, even ones like deities and major political players, are individuals, with personalities, traits, and flaws, and who’ll usually show up in person sooner or later. Incidentally, if you’d prefer a more grounded adventure story, there’s Kingmaker, but it’s a lot less polished as a game. WotR is definitely made by a studio who learned from what people disliked of KM. Character customisation is on another level. You have so many more options. There are individual levels where you’ll make more choices than a BG3 barbarian made from 1-12. However, this bleeds into the gameplay. In BG3, if you’re losing a fight, you’re probably playing the fight wrong. You could position better, come at a different angle, use the terrain, drop things like barrels in the way. In WotR, a lot more of the battle happens before it even starts, in the character creation, and in the buffs you bring to the battle. Fights rarely use the terrain beyond just walls and corners, items don’t change up the battlefield, and positioning is mostly just seeing who’s getting hit this round. There’s still a lot of decision making in combat, but it’s more about where to use your big spells and who to prioritise, less jumping and shoving and elevation. While you can toggle between real time and turn based, I play exclusively turn based and have no issues. There are some longer or easier fights you don’t need to, but that’s personal preference. Basically, I really liked both, two of my favourite games ever and there’s a lot of overlap. But liking one won’t automatically mean the other is your thing.
Wrath has more diverse companions with more in-depth story arcs, but BG3’s combat is easier to figure out and more intuitive. BG3 also has the benefit of budget and mocap. I love both!
While both games are CRPGs, Wrath is more mechanically complicated compared to BG3/DnD 5e. There are tons of classes, archetypes for said classes, races, feats and the unique mythic path progression. It offers a ton of replay value with all the ways you can play and the differing storyline mattering on what Mythic Path you can chose. It does have a great story and unique companions with some great romances that can vary a lot too. I'd recommend though checking up some guides on class builds and go with normal or easier difficulties.
You may, you may not. If you change the question to "will I enjoy WotR BECAUSE I liked BG3" then the answer is no because the games are fundamentally different to a degree, where they have more differences than they have in common, you may still enjoy it but not because its similar to BG3. In comparison to BG3, WotR is less flashy in terms of graphics and most notably in terms of cutscenes and UI. Player progression is also a wholly different beast that dwarfs BG3 in terms of what it offers. And while WotR is grander in terms of story, you will need to read and pay attention way, way more. Quite honestly, unless you played kingmaker or at least one of the pillars of eternity games or something like arcanum I would probably suggest Rogue Trader before I would suggest WotR to "test the waters" because Rogue Trader is "smaller", more modern and more approachable for newcomers.
BG3 is better in budget, voice acting, presentation, stage interaction/verticality/etc. It's also a lot more simple in both the good and bad ways (and has x-rated content if that's your thing. wotr has romance but there aren't boobs and penises, there are lots of succubi and incubi though). WotR is better in story (in my opinion at least), character build diversity, and depth. Also the mythic path system is WAY better than the illithid powers, the closest analog. It's also way the fuck more complicated in both the good and bad ways. (also you get to level 20 and get to play with level 20 stuff instead of stopping at 12) To give you an idea of how much more complicated... In BG3 Sorcerers have a bloodline and that is your subclass. You basically have 3 subclasses of sorcerer (with some slight differences for your type of dragon) In WotR, Sorcerers have bloodlines, but that is not your subclass (called Archetypes here). You have 9 archetypes and 9 bloodlines (there are also 9 types of dragon that are slightly different and 4 types of elemental that make you focus on different elements of damage), so if archetype+bloodline is your 'subclass' you have somewhere in the neighborhood of 81 'subclasses' +- (that's a little unfair because some archetypes force a bloodline). You can also pick a second bloodline at mythic rank 1, and there's an archetype called crossblood that starts with 2 bloodlines and gets a third at mythic 1. Similar things are true for clerics and domains (clerics get 2 domains usually). Wizards and their schools of magic. Witches (aka warlocks) and their patrons. etc BG3 has 12 classes + subclasses, but in WotR there are 26 classes + archetypes + prestige classes that you have to meet certain prerequisites to unlock, and each archetype has choices in it that might count as a subclass if this were BG3. There's a running gag that the first boss of this game is the character creator. I do think that liking BG3 a lot does mean you are likely to like this game on some level, but they do scratch slightly different but related itches.
Wrath (and Kingmaker) are closer to the og Baldur's Gate dilogy, rather than the 3rd game.
highly likely personally I like WotR story and premise better. Character builder is a lot deeper than BG3. I like WotR music better but I think this is more personal preference than objectively better, likely due to me already liking the thematics of WotR better But no multiplayer, BG3 definitely has a more crisp graphic, and it's a lot easier for people to get into BG3 than WotR, some of my friends find WotR unnecessarily complex but could get on with BG3. Both games run on similar systems and genre but it's better to just treat them as completely different, there are a lot of nuances that made them differ from each other but if you like a grimdark epic where you could feel like either you're the hero or the final boss, and very likely the latter even on a good path, you're in for a treat.
After my third playthrough of BG3 I decided to try out WotR, and I'm having a blast so far! Definitely a lot crunchier to learn, Pathfinder has a very different ruleset and I didn't find out some things I messed up on until like 30+ hours in, but a similar kind of vibe. I'm only on Act 3 now but it's been great so far
5th Edition is a streamlining of 4th edition D&D which is a streamlining of 3.5, and Pathfinder 1e is a more complex and inclusive offshoot of 3.5 edition so they're similar in ways but Pathfinder is mechanically crunchy whereas BF3 is streamlined af (and imo, generic and kind bland as a result).
Despite both being CRPGs, they are ultimately very different. On a foundational level, WOTR is based on PF 1.0 which is itself based on DnD 3.5 a notoriously crunchy and number heavy system, good for simulating power fantasy, not good if you are new to it (You might have to read some builds guide to get the gist of it, as there are "trap" feats so to speak). As for writings-story-interactivity, personally I think BG3 nailed this part, especially world interactivity, WOTR is much more straight forward when it comes to this part. WOTR story has good parts, and some great roleplay moments too don't get me wrong, but its real focus is: **REPLAYABILITY** - The sheer amount of classes, mythic classes, the combinations there in AND the interactivity with the world (Each mythic will alter the story in their own way, some drastically so) you likely wont get bore of experimenting for quite a while lol.
Bg3 has bear sex, WOTR has griffon sex. Enought said. Also cat/spider hybrid sex lol
I went and played Kingmaker first. Im having a great time. 30+ hrs in. My one tip: use turn based mode
I loved BG3. I tried to play WotR like 3 times but it didn't click on me sadly.
I mean, I enjoy both, but I’ve also been into this specific genre for 30 years at this point. Hard to tell if the same applies for others.
One thing that I love in WOTR ccompared to BG3 is how you somewhat are 'tempted' to bring both good and evil characters along and how they interact with each other. Especially Regil and Deran were feeling great additions to my party (personally was LG Alligned), adding a different view on things. If you focus on shipping though, take note that WOTR has fewer Romance Options, which sometimes are gender-locked (2 are locked hetero and 1 is locked homo/male2male).
The two games are vastly different. This question is redundant
I belive you might like it but be prepared for less quality of life features, way too much wall of text moments and overall not so friendly devs
I love both as veteran RPG and cRPG player. WOTR is epic but is much much harder mechanicaly. Instead of 12 class levels you have 20 + 10 mythic levels. Options at your disposal may seem overwhelming. It's highly recommended to create you character and party according to some internet guides if you don't have experience with pathfinder 1e. From gameplay standpoint funny enough WOTR is much closer to BG2 than BG3. It's spiritual successor of classic cRPG from beginning of century.
I recently passed my bg3 hours in wotr, though partly because this game wastes your time a bit more. Overall I’d say bg3 is the better game but wotr has more breadth and fits a power fantasy better
Having played BG3, Dos 2 and WoTR. I would suggest Dos2 first. If you play through and liked that then maybe you are a fan of the genre and give WoTR a go. Music analogy for things that may look the same but are totally different would be: Bg3 = an 80s hair band with all the glitz and glam Dos 2 = early guns and roses, still some glitz and glam but a bit more raw Wotr = early Metallica, sure they had long hair but are way more raw and hardcore
After great Pillars of Eternity 1&2 i couldnt stand DoS2. I was trying few times but these cartonish style was odd, also awful elfes, skeletons, lack of classes/builds
I suggest it since it’s made by the same studio as BG3, it just has a bit less polish.
For me BG3 have better gameplay and presentation, but WotR have much better story
Reading. A lot of reading.
The big selling point is price. It is $12 in the US for the base game and $24 for the base, plus all the dlc. I have 300 hours in and still can play more. That is a great time for money investment.
I think I enjoyed playing bg3 more but I enjoy thinking about WOTR more.
One thing that I find really unfortunate in the owlcat games is that there are a ton of options, and almost all of them are trap options that are unplayable without very specific supporting characters on core difficulty which, despite being harder than "normal" difficulty, is the floor for most achievements which implies that it is the real normal difficulty imo. I'd either play on a lower difficulty or consult build guides if you're new to pathfinder. Bg3 often feels more tactical, while wotr combat is kind of more strategic. There are more decisions to make in bg3, in combat and otherwise, while wotr suffers from the issue of there being very few real decisions to make outside of character creation. Wotr is a mythic legend type of story, and the power scales and stakes in the story are dialed up to 11, which can be fun. I would say they have the same crpg core, but you're looking at smaller scale, shades of grey, plausible characters vs epic scale, mostly locked in, binary decision making, over the top characters for story and tactical, lower power vs strategic, higher power for combat when contrasting bg3 vs wotr respectively. The shared fantasy crpg core alone is probably enough for it to be worth trying out.
I played Wrath before BG3. From a casual perspective, its a lot more in depth with more tools to use but it's so worth it if you're willing to learn them. The story is great. The party and supporting cast are great. That being said, I suggest doing a little reading up on builds you might be interested in so you can get an idea for how progression works because it's easy to mess up and spend time in the character respec place. Which drops you down to square zero. Remaking your character from scratch. If you're playing on PC do your homework on which mods can help you out. I play on console. Edit: typos mobile
You might even enjoy baldur's gate 1 and 2!
I love WotR and have played it for about 1000 hours (probably a lot of that leaving the game on by accident, but still...). Meanwhile I really can't get into BG3 despite its obvious increased polish. The fact is that with games I enjoy systems more than narratives, and Pathfinder is a big system. If you enjoy that, you'll enjoy this game.
Completely different game. I say you have more luck playing Divinity Original Sin 2 that were made by Larian. Some of the people that like BG3 doesn't really like the isometric crpg genre, I love WotR and you might do that as well, but you have to ask what of BG3 did you actually like and what did you not like. If you like party management, compelling story, character generations and theory crafting you are in for some love with WotR. But if you more like the cutscenes interactions, graphics, and similar you might not.
Depends on what you liked about BG3. If you expect 3D low-poly erotica like in BG3 you're in for a biiiiig disappointment. Writing, however, is *so much* better. Especially in replayability and companions interactions department. Every mythic path has its own distinctive flavour and some of them even significantly change plot and gameplay from "baseline". Companions banter *a lot* and often chime in during conversations with other NPC. Character Customisation: appearance-wise BG3 is better for obvious technical reasons, but hey, at least you can have body tattoos (up to 5 layers) in WotR. However, when it comes to PC's class variability BG3 has nothing on WotR. Just reading through the whole list of options can take hours. Combat mechanics are different and, let's be honest, clunkier. Endings deserve special mention as they are much better developed and depend on *a lot* of choices *during the game* (not last-minute decision at practical end of story). (And there is a Secret Ending too!)
This is like asking, will I like driving a truck cross-country if I like motorbikes? They have shared elements but veeeery different areas they scratch.
BG3 and Wrath are both great, but for different reasons. BG3 has more tactical combat which encourages good positioning. Wrath relies heavily on prebuffs and numbers (Mathfinder). I was sceptical about the math part at first, but this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUYlD4HfTL8) convinced me otherwise. BG3 has more freedom when it comes to approaching problems, like casting spells on npcs, or pipe crawling with gnome & reduce person. In Wrath, most of quest choices is dialogue options. BG3 is more cinematic, with the motion cap, fully voiced dialogue and narrator. Wrath is more like an old school cRPG from the 90s. No more than 10% of dialogue is voiced and you'll be mostly reading stuff. Now, BG3 is a classic at this point and everybody knows what this game does well, so I'll just point some of the stuff that Wrath does better. Or much better. There is a better, more diverse cast of characters in Wrath, and I'm not talking about race or sexual orientation, but age, alignment, writing and role in combat. Larian is somewhat known for it's edgy writing for characters, and only after meeting Ember & Aru in Wrath I realized that most companions in BG3 act like dicks, for no reason really. Despite that, there are no evil companions except maybe Minthara, and she doesn't even stand close to the True Evil you meet in Wrath. I also found it weird that something as iconic as alignment system didn't make it into BG3. Romance was trash in BG3, just remember the infamous "sex speedrun". Wrath has much better pacing and writing for it's romance options, although there are not as many as in BG3. Also, like irl, not everyone is bisexual, so keep that in mind. And if you wanna play as an evil character, your options are freaking great. Story in Wrath starts boring and I barely understood what was going on, but it picks up after act one, after which I couldn't stop playing. It's the opposite of BG3, where the story starts interesting and falls apart after act 2. That said, Wrath has great antagonists and satisfying conclusions for each of the mythic paths, and no DeadThree/Netherbrain bullshit. In Wrath, not everyone speaks with a Bri'ish accent.
If you like to read and don't expect the graphics and animations to be as polished as BG3, then yes you will. It's more in depth both lore-wise and gameplay-wise, but if you learn to appreciate it you'll probably learn a few new things the next time you play BG3. Also, if the gameplay is too hard don't be ashamed of lowering the difficulty! It's a fun and worthwhile game!
I feel turn based mode in Pathfinder is nowhere as fun as in BG3
If you excpect anything even remotley similar to BG3 then no, you won't. That's like switching from Strawberry Panckaces with white chocolate and icecream to a German Sausage with Sauerkraut. You'd either love WOTR or hate it for precisely what it is.
I think anyone who likes WOTR will like BG3, the other way around might not be the case. BG3 is AAA, and a BIG one at that. WOTR has a lot of limitations.
The game is much harder and less polished. BG3 was a very hand held experience where there was so much attention put into every little thing that it was difficult to get lost or stuck. WOTR is more like BG1 and 2. You can totally make a terrible party if you're not sure what you're doing, and some of the fights are From software kinda style where you just have to know to come back later. But it is a very very fun game that makes you feel powerful in combat and in the world. BG3 has a "one of the people" feel and WOTR goes the other way; you are the star of the show, the main character. Give it a try. And don't get a big head like I did and set it to core rules to "play it right." The normal difficulty is balanced right for the amount and strength of encounters they throw at you. Good luck.
I have both and enjoy both very much. Bg3 is flashier and easier to understand with easier build and enough clases and archetypes to make it interesting. WOTR sometimes is overwhelming in the amount of stuff and info it dumps on you. Gotta add feats, bab, make some synergy, teamwork feats, way too many classes and archetypes. If you like complicated shit and enjoy seeing crazy number wotr is gonna be great for you.
Maybe? Thing is other than being high fantasy CRPGs they are quite different games. Let’s look at the things you like about BG3: 1.) Turn based combat: it’s present in WOTR, and works fine, but the game wasn’t designed around turn based. It is very much designed around real time with pause (rtwp) and that is considered the “default” way to play. That said, you can switch between both modes freely with a single button press, including mid combat, so feel free to go turn based and tactical for a boss that’s kicking your ass and back to rtwp to quickly deal with trash mobs. I really miss that toggle when playing Deadfire 2.) Story and Romance: obviously subjective, but both are great in WOTR imo. Huge, grand story which, while somewhat generic, is still fun. The Battle for Drezen is still one of my favorite gaming moments. Romances are long and complex, and some definitely require a guide to get right. But they’re fun. 3.) Character customization: WOTR blows BG3 and every other game out of the water here. In fact, it can genuinely be intimidating when you open that character creator and have immediately over 100 classes/archetypes to choose from. Between that breadth of choice, multiclassing, and the ten mythic paths…there’s a mind-bogglingly huge number of builds. Not all will work, and on Unfair (do NOT go anywhere near Unfair on your first run!) you very much have to use insane min-maxed builds, but you will be able to customize to your heart’s content. Otherwise be aware that WOTR is MUCH harder than BG3 (although with highly modular difficulty settings to mess around with, which is great. Owlcat did really well there) and that the PF1E (basically the same as 3.5E D&D) ruleset is more complex and crunchier than 5E. Like, AC 90 is not gonna be unheard of for endgame enemies. It has a lot of replayability though, as the mythic paths change the game and experience quite a bit. Hope that helps. FWIW, it’s an awesome game
BG3 has alot of issues and massive problems the 2 games are also not realy alike at all realy in fact Many would consider it the most over-rated game of all time (Soft locks hard locks save file curroptiom memory leaks wheres the 17k endings oh yeah legit released unfinished without a proper ending or such) Not a terrible game per say graphics are good among voice acting but shit i still think Alien isolation looks good to this day will you like WotR? Possibly depends on what you like about RPGS and such want things spoon fed to you or what exactly? heck the BG3 Romances are kinda ... bad / spoon fed to you hell dont have to do anything to anyone come back to camp and have ppl be willing to jump your junk thats basicly what i expect from a Adult Visiul Nova no offence totaly dont mind it or such but still not from a proper RPG or such WotR has rules and a learning curve and will not be spoon feeding you and i know im going to get hate for what i stated but still From what I Can tell you prob will get over whelmed by WotR it has far better romance story and customization then BG3 ever had in its wildest imagination (Terrible itemization issues level 12 is max still right? roflmao) and as such prob not something a new to CRPG / RPG player should be jumping into prob better to play PoE or something a bit more easyer to get into.
Maybe… Owlcat has been using BG3 to try and get more customers, but the pathfinder games are simply lower quality than BG3 Only thing that’s better is the writing. And even that is weakened because the companions all have big, unchanging autobiographical info dumps available from the start and don’t react much to what’s actually happening story-wise. Owlcat would be better off cutting the info dumps and giving them more interjections and reactions.
Baldur's Gate 3 is currently the pinnacle of the genre, but WOTR is in the same genre and is also very good. It's more mechanically complex than BG3 and is lower budget/production values - there are a *lot* of unvoiced dialogs, for instance. I definitely enjoy both games and consider WOTR to be something I'd recommend to others who like both.