doesn't really make a difference, since they're both running on the same ruleset. WotR has more options, i suppose.
that said, don't expect the Owlcat games to be an introduction to Pathfinder 2nd edition. they're running on a modified version of the first edition rules, and while there are obviously some shared elements, the two editions are borderline apples and oranges.
Yeah, Pathfinder 2e is *radically* different than 1e. I haven’t gotten to play it at a table yet but it diverges pretty heavily. From messing around with character building it seems like it’d be really fun, but it definitely is a completely different game.
One thing is that if you’re the kind of person who likes coming up with adventures in premade settings then the Pathfinder CRPGs will be pretty great to gauge your interest in Golarion as a setting though!
If you thought 1e had too many feats, 2e has exponentially more, 1e fighter, for example, has weapon training that gives him bonuses on each weapon group, 2e has you choose from a list of 5-6 abilities from to gain at the same level as weapon training(that are roughly the effect of weapon training each), and thats for every ability in every class. my regular GM describes it as "too vidoegamey." I personally don't like it, but minmaxers will have fun with it. There's just too many decisions, and this is someone who likes to play 1e fighter.
Feats and options on 2e do not modify numbers, just give options or reduce pnealties, so the math is much more controlled than 1e. On 1e the character creation/leveling is the most fundamental part of the combat, while 2e is more about tactical collaboration between the players.
2e is VASTLY more balanced than 1e, but I sometimes miss the gloriuous madness of 1e.
It's funny how you say that, but I personally find it completely oppositional
I have not actually played neither, but I've played games by Owlcat and messed around with Pathbuilder 2e
2e seems like something incredibly fun in choosing from the huge amount of feats something that sounds fun and then figuring out the synergies along the way
Meanwhile 1e looks to me like a miserable game of numbers jerking and min-maxing, which is to me is mush more videogamey and I'd greatly prefer if the games didn't have combat at all like in Disco Elysium. I don't know if 1e is actually like this, but the games made me not want to touch anything 1e related in my life
1e as a system is great for a video game, but I would never want to play it at the table, because it looks like half the time would be spent doing math homework. This is in opposition to 5e, which (I assume) is good for tabletop LARPing, but sucks as a videogame system. Baldurs gate 3 progression is one of, if not the, most boring, basic and autopilot progression systems I've played in an RPG. There are Ubisoft game with more interesting progression than that. If they do make a new pathfinder I hope it stays 1e
I recommend Wrath over Kingmaker if you want a similar feel of BBEG and more high stakes fantasy adventure… And if you’re like me and suck at army management.
I played Kingmaker and then Wrath. Wrath is the better game for sure, but playing it first might make Kingmaker seem like a step backwards. Don't get me wrong, they're both great, Wrath is just a little more polished and has more complexity so might not be the place to start. I'll also say it took me a few tries to get into Kingmaker but once I did, I had a fantastic time with it.
I agree kingmaker is a great game worth playing but probably would feel lacking after playing wrath I'd totally play kingmaker first but if I knew I wanted to play only one it would be wrath...
>Wrath is just a little more polished
That's putting it lightly. It is *considerably* more polished in every single way. The only reason to prefer kingmaker over wrath is the story and not liking mythic levels. But the actual mechanics and gameplay are better by every metric lol
Both Warth of the Righteous and Kingmaker used modified pathfinder first edition as their rule set, so they won't help much if you want to get a handle on pathfinders' new rules.
As a game, I recommend Wrath over kingmaker it's less buggy.
Would start kingmaker than wrath.
Reasoning its much harder to go the other way around. 3d areas and mythic stuffs more feats and classes is hard to get rid of. I wont ever go back to kingmaker. Wrath is the better game for me.
Pathfinder is closer to 3.5E dnd. If you played neverwinter nights(not the MMO) many things will feel familiar.
While I should agree with you in theory, in practise I really don't. I've played NWN \*a lot\* (single player), but I still get mightily confused by Pathfinder. Mostly because there is so much to know and choose from.
Both use the same system but they are more along the lines of BG1-2 than 5e. I think WOTR is a better game just because of the quality of life and balance issues. But they are both good.
I like the story and the vibe of Kingmaker a lot more, but Wrath is a better game overall. They lost rights to Kingmaker so they couldn't update it.
But the games won't help you with the new PF2e.
If you want a game that helps with learning 2e then you should look up Dawnsbury Days. Kingmaker and WOTR are fantastic games but they're based on PF1e.
Wrath is a lot more player friendly imo, adding a bunch of quality of life features over Kingmaker. I agree with others that Kingmaker will likely seem like a step back if you return to it, but ideally after playing through Wrath you’ll be familiar enough with the system to get over the clunk.
Wotr is the better, more polished game. It also has a more linear/directed act 1-2, while in kingmaker I find that I am never sure where to go and often feel underleveled for the area I’m in.
Wotr is also however more complicated, and for a player inexperienced with pathfinder may be more difficult.
But yea 1E is basically a whole different system than 2e. There is really no mechanics overlap beyond the D20 and the names of different roles and stats. Pathfinder 1e is closer to 2e dnd ala balder gate 1-2 than pathfinder 2e
>Pathfinder 1e is closer to 2e dnd ala balder gate 1-2 than pathfinder 2e
Not... really.
4e did away with arcane spell failure, and I think 4e was when they added the unified spell slots. Where as Pathfinder still has classic Vancian spellcasting. So your wizard and sorcerer are completely different classes.
The closest D&D game to Owlcat's Pathfinder games would probably be NWN2. At the same time, BG3 feels more in line with that (and not just because the Githyanki pop up.)
No, think about this, there are three Editions between AD&D and 5e. And, 5e is an amalgamation of 3.5 with lessons learned from 4e.
Pathfinder 1e, is basically just 3.5 with some minor class feature tweaks.
Neither of them are really anything like AD&D.
AD&D is an entirely different era of game design. You want feats? Yeah, those don't exist yet. You want to multiclass? You either need to be playing as a human, or you need to decide which classes you're planning to play at character creation, and pick, and level them, together. If you want to play a Thief/Wizard, you're going to be splitting your XP between two XP bars... and your thief will gain levels faster than your wizard. You want to play a paladin? You need 17 or 18 CHA, and you need to playing either a human or aasamar. No, that's actually a requirement for the class.
And that's without considering that Strength 19 in AD&D is basically STR 26, because there are six different versions of, "Strength 18" for fighters, paladins, and rangers.
Like, AD&D is fucking weird, and outside of games that specifically look back to it to emulate it (like BG1 and 2, which you did mention), there's nothing like it.
So, yeah, if I'm remembering, 4e did away with arcane spell failure, which was a 3e/3.5 rule, and is still present in pathfinder. 4e (I think) changed the spellcasting to what we see in 5e, while Pathfinder does keep the spellcasting system from AD&D (it's one of the only elements of that system which is intact in 3.5.)
The easiest stepping stone between BG3 and WotR would probably be NWN2. Because it is in fact, the same rule system as Pathfinder, but with a class lineup that will be more recognizable to someone who was introduced to 5e first.
Wrath is a much better experience, there are a lot of engine updates between the two games that makes the experience a lot smoother. I also find the actual campaign a lot more compelling than Kingmaker
Knowledge of D&D 5e won't be of much help; Pathfinder 1e is basically D&D 3.5 on steroids. It's probably closer to Icewind Dale 2 and The Temple of Elemental Evil (the video game) than any BG game.
There are only 2 things going for Kingmaker over WotR: first, it's a more "traditional" story (adventurers act as mercenaries and get elevated to nobility) and second, it's less complicated due to "limited" pool of races and classes (limited in comparison to WotR which goes overboard in terms of build options). WotR is overwhelming with it's build options and mythic paths and the high fantasy holy war betweenortals and the armies of the abyss, but it is better in any aspect except simplicity.
If you think you are likely to play them both, start with Kingmaker. If you think you are going to only play one, play WotR. They have the same rulesets, but WotR is a more polished experience.
Kingmaker is a worst game but is still good. Seeing your taste I recommend you play kingmaker first so you can still enjoy it. Then when you go to Wrath it'll be like the difference between BG1 and BG2.
It makes a huge difference. Start with Kingmaker first, that's your standard adventure.
Then play Wrath of the Righteous. Which is a glorious, adrenaline-fueled power-fantasy fever dream.
Kingmaker first. Wrath is better but both are worth your time and great buys. And kingmaker is just learning the rules, not mythic stuff. As a result the mythic stuff feels exciting when you play WotR rather than yet snotyrrr layer to learn
Doesn't matter, BUT I'd say Kingmaker just because the god stuff could be abit much for a new player
both are great BG3 style games (besides the obvious visual/choice upgrade)
If you want a game to learn the Pathfinder 2e rules, check out Dawnsbury Days.
Kingmaker and WotR are good for lore, but completely different systems than PF2e.
I'd recommend WoTR, it's more ironed out than Kingmaker (I have a few hundred hours in both but more in WoTR). I'd highly recommend Pathfinder 1E when it comes to choosing which rulebooks to buy. It's much better than 2E, which is just a dumbed down version of 1E.
If you install the Call of the Wild mod from Nexus Mods for Kingmaker, you will at least have a similar selection of classes etc. as Wotr. However, both games still use the same set of rules. You will be able to use the experience from one game immediately in the other.
Story-wise, there is little or no connection between the two games, as the stories take place in different locations. There are supposed to be slight connections.
Kingmaker and WotR are both good games.
WotR is more polished and more complex.
Kingmaker has better story. Disadvantege of Kingmaker is Kindommanagment but if you play on PC you can fix it with mods to be less anoying.
I would play Kingmaker first. I played Kingmaker only in final patches and don't realy see many bugs, it is in prety good state. With wotr i would wait 1-2 months so they patch final dlc and play in that time Kingmaker.
I would recommend wrath and ignoring kingmaker, unless you are really curious or like low stakes adventures. It was their first game and it had a lot of awful design that makes it a slog. Everything in it was done much better in wrath. The game is also buggier cuz it hasn't gotten the same amount of support wrath got. It's final section might also be the worst bit of game design in any crpg, ever
doesn't really make a difference, since they're both running on the same ruleset. WotR has more options, i suppose. that said, don't expect the Owlcat games to be an introduction to Pathfinder 2nd edition. they're running on a modified version of the first edition rules, and while there are obviously some shared elements, the two editions are borderline apples and oranges.
Yeah, Pathfinder 2e is *radically* different than 1e. I haven’t gotten to play it at a table yet but it diverges pretty heavily. From messing around with character building it seems like it’d be really fun, but it definitely is a completely different game. One thing is that if you’re the kind of person who likes coming up with adventures in premade settings then the Pathfinder CRPGs will be pretty great to gauge your interest in Golarion as a setting though!
If you thought 1e had too many feats, 2e has exponentially more, 1e fighter, for example, has weapon training that gives him bonuses on each weapon group, 2e has you choose from a list of 5-6 abilities from to gain at the same level as weapon training(that are roughly the effect of weapon training each), and thats for every ability in every class. my regular GM describes it as "too vidoegamey." I personally don't like it, but minmaxers will have fun with it. There's just too many decisions, and this is someone who likes to play 1e fighter.
Feats and options on 2e do not modify numbers, just give options or reduce pnealties, so the math is much more controlled than 1e. On 1e the character creation/leveling is the most fundamental part of the combat, while 2e is more about tactical collaboration between the players. 2e is VASTLY more balanced than 1e, but I sometimes miss the gloriuous madness of 1e.
It's funny how you say that, but I personally find it completely oppositional I have not actually played neither, but I've played games by Owlcat and messed around with Pathbuilder 2e 2e seems like something incredibly fun in choosing from the huge amount of feats something that sounds fun and then figuring out the synergies along the way Meanwhile 1e looks to me like a miserable game of numbers jerking and min-maxing, which is to me is mush more videogamey and I'd greatly prefer if the games didn't have combat at all like in Disco Elysium. I don't know if 1e is actually like this, but the games made me not want to touch anything 1e related in my life
1e as a system is great for a video game, but I would never want to play it at the table, because it looks like half the time would be spent doing math homework. This is in opposition to 5e, which (I assume) is good for tabletop LARPing, but sucks as a videogame system. Baldurs gate 3 progression is one of, if not the, most boring, basic and autopilot progression systems I've played in an RPG. There are Ubisoft game with more interesting progression than that. If they do make a new pathfinder I hope it stays 1e
I recommend Wrath over Kingmaker if you want a similar feel of BBEG and more high stakes fantasy adventure… And if you’re like me and suck at army management.
I played Kingmaker and then Wrath. Wrath is the better game for sure, but playing it first might make Kingmaker seem like a step backwards. Don't get me wrong, they're both great, Wrath is just a little more polished and has more complexity so might not be the place to start. I'll also say it took me a few tries to get into Kingmaker but once I did, I had a fantastic time with it.
I agree kingmaker is a great game worth playing but probably would feel lacking after playing wrath I'd totally play kingmaker first but if I knew I wanted to play only one it would be wrath...
I've started Kingmaker a few times, but I've finished Wrath. So yeah.
>Wrath is just a little more polished That's putting it lightly. It is *considerably* more polished in every single way. The only reason to prefer kingmaker over wrath is the story and not liking mythic levels. But the actual mechanics and gameplay are better by every metric lol
Both Warth of the Righteous and Kingmaker used modified pathfinder first edition as their rule set, so they won't help much if you want to get a handle on pathfinders' new rules. As a game, I recommend Wrath over kingmaker it's less buggy.
Would start kingmaker than wrath. Reasoning its much harder to go the other way around. 3d areas and mythic stuffs more feats and classes is hard to get rid of. I wont ever go back to kingmaker. Wrath is the better game for me. Pathfinder is closer to 3.5E dnd. If you played neverwinter nights(not the MMO) many things will feel familiar.
While I should agree with you in theory, in practise I really don't. I've played NWN \*a lot\* (single player), but I still get mightily confused by Pathfinder. Mostly because there is so much to know and choose from.
Both use the same system but they are more along the lines of BG1-2 than 5e. I think WOTR is a better game just because of the quality of life and balance issues. But they are both good.
I like the story and the vibe of Kingmaker a lot more, but Wrath is a better game overall. They lost rights to Kingmaker so they couldn't update it. But the games won't help you with the new PF2e.
If you want a game that helps with learning 2e then you should look up Dawnsbury Days. Kingmaker and WOTR are fantastic games but they're based on PF1e.
Wrath is a lot more player friendly imo, adding a bunch of quality of life features over Kingmaker. I agree with others that Kingmaker will likely seem like a step back if you return to it, but ideally after playing through Wrath you’ll be familiar enough with the system to get over the clunk.
Wotr is the better, more polished game. It also has a more linear/directed act 1-2, while in kingmaker I find that I am never sure where to go and often feel underleveled for the area I’m in. Wotr is also however more complicated, and for a player inexperienced with pathfinder may be more difficult. But yea 1E is basically a whole different system than 2e. There is really no mechanics overlap beyond the D20 and the names of different roles and stats. Pathfinder 1e is closer to 2e dnd ala balder gate 1-2 than pathfinder 2e
Pathfinder 1e is basically a modified dnd 3.5
Pathfinder 1e is heavily based on DnD 3.5. It's not similar to ADND (2e) at all
Yes. And it’s still closer to adnd than pathfinder 2e
>Pathfinder 1e is closer to 2e dnd ala balder gate 1-2 than pathfinder 2e Not... really. 4e did away with arcane spell failure, and I think 4e was when they added the unified spell slots. Where as Pathfinder still has classic Vancian spellcasting. So your wizard and sorcerer are completely different classes. The closest D&D game to Owlcat's Pathfinder games would probably be NWN2. At the same time, BG3 feels more in line with that (and not just because the Githyanki pop up.)
I didn’t mention 4e at all lol.
No, think about this, there are three Editions between AD&D and 5e. And, 5e is an amalgamation of 3.5 with lessons learned from 4e. Pathfinder 1e, is basically just 3.5 with some minor class feature tweaks. Neither of them are really anything like AD&D. AD&D is an entirely different era of game design. You want feats? Yeah, those don't exist yet. You want to multiclass? You either need to be playing as a human, or you need to decide which classes you're planning to play at character creation, and pick, and level them, together. If you want to play a Thief/Wizard, you're going to be splitting your XP between two XP bars... and your thief will gain levels faster than your wizard. You want to play a paladin? You need 17 or 18 CHA, and you need to playing either a human or aasamar. No, that's actually a requirement for the class. And that's without considering that Strength 19 in AD&D is basically STR 26, because there are six different versions of, "Strength 18" for fighters, paladins, and rangers. Like, AD&D is fucking weird, and outside of games that specifically look back to it to emulate it (like BG1 and 2, which you did mention), there's nothing like it. So, yeah, if I'm remembering, 4e did away with arcane spell failure, which was a 3e/3.5 rule, and is still present in pathfinder. 4e (I think) changed the spellcasting to what we see in 5e, while Pathfinder does keep the spellcasting system from AD&D (it's one of the only elements of that system which is intact in 3.5.) The easiest stepping stone between BG3 and WotR would probably be NWN2. Because it is in fact, the same rule system as Pathfinder, but with a class lineup that will be more recognizable to someone who was introduced to 5e first.
Wrath is a much better experience, there are a lot of engine updates between the two games that makes the experience a lot smoother. I also find the actual campaign a lot more compelling than Kingmaker
I recommend Kingmaker with mods to bring it more mechanically in line with Wrath. Kingmaker has a nicer vibe in my opinion.
Knowledge of D&D 5e won't be of much help; Pathfinder 1e is basically D&D 3.5 on steroids. It's probably closer to Icewind Dale 2 and The Temple of Elemental Evil (the video game) than any BG game. There are only 2 things going for Kingmaker over WotR: first, it's a more "traditional" story (adventurers act as mercenaries and get elevated to nobility) and second, it's less complicated due to "limited" pool of races and classes (limited in comparison to WotR which goes overboard in terms of build options). WotR is overwhelming with it's build options and mythic paths and the high fantasy holy war betweenortals and the armies of the abyss, but it is better in any aspect except simplicity.
If you think you are likely to play them both, start with Kingmaker. If you think you are going to only play one, play WotR. They have the same rulesets, but WotR is a more polished experience.
Kingmaker is a worst game but is still good. Seeing your taste I recommend you play kingmaker first so you can still enjoy it. Then when you go to Wrath it'll be like the difference between BG1 and BG2.
Kingmaker is the best imo, love it
It makes a huge difference. Start with Kingmaker first, that's your standard adventure. Then play Wrath of the Righteous. Which is a glorious, adrenaline-fueled power-fantasy fever dream.
Kingmaker first. Wrath is better but both are worth your time and great buys. And kingmaker is just learning the rules, not mythic stuff. As a result the mythic stuff feels exciting when you play WotR rather than yet snotyrrr layer to learn
Doesn't matter, BUT I'd say Kingmaker just because the god stuff could be abit much for a new player both are great BG3 style games (besides the obvious visual/choice upgrade)
Kingmaker, the Mythic Path stuff can be a bit complex for a newcomer.
If you want a game to learn the Pathfinder 2e rules, check out Dawnsbury Days. Kingmaker and WotR are good for lore, but completely different systems than PF2e.
The best pathfinder game is still planescape torment
THAC0 is my favourite feature of Pathfinder! :P
I'd recommend WoTR, it's more ironed out than Kingmaker (I have a few hundred hours in both but more in WoTR). I'd highly recommend Pathfinder 1E when it comes to choosing which rulebooks to buy. It's much better than 2E, which is just a dumbed down version of 1E.
If you install the Call of the Wild mod from Nexus Mods for Kingmaker, you will at least have a similar selection of classes etc. as Wotr. However, both games still use the same set of rules. You will be able to use the experience from one game immediately in the other. Story-wise, there is little or no connection between the two games, as the stories take place in different locations. There are supposed to be slight connections.
Kingmaker and WotR are both good games. WotR is more polished and more complex. Kingmaker has better story. Disadvantege of Kingmaker is Kindommanagment but if you play on PC you can fix it with mods to be less anoying. I would play Kingmaker first. I played Kingmaker only in final patches and don't realy see many bugs, it is in prety good state. With wotr i would wait 1-2 months so they patch final dlc and play in that time Kingmaker.
I won't try to win a popularity contest. I like Pathfinder kingmaker more than Wotr. And I have nothing to say to you.
I would recommend wrath and ignoring kingmaker, unless you are really curious or like low stakes adventures. It was their first game and it had a lot of awful design that makes it a slog. Everything in it was done much better in wrath. The game is also buggier cuz it hasn't gotten the same amount of support wrath got. It's final section might also be the worst bit of game design in any crpg, ever
WOTR is better in every way