r/baldursgate • u/Buttleproof • 2d ago
Need some classic BGers opinion on the Pathfinder games.
I'm stuck between buying Pathfinder:Kingmaker and BG3. I've heard that the Pathfinder games are closer to the experience of the first two games (and the Infinity Engine games in particular). What say you?
33
u/Mithrillica 2d ago
BG3 didn't scratch that BG itch for me, like at all. BG3 felt like a Divinity: Original Sin with a different ruleset. Pillars of Eternity and the Pathfinder games are way closer to BG as a gaming experience.
12
u/DmanJohnson000 2d ago
Kingmaker is recommended, since WOR improves on everything even the engine. You'll get that weird this is worse in every way if you do it the other way around
8
5
u/elcapitan449 2d ago
The pathfinder games definitely feel closer to the original baldurs gate games. Both are a blast to play as well
5
u/ScorpionTDC 2d ago
Both are stellar and worthwhile playthroughs. That said, Pathfinder is closer in feel and vibe to BG1 and 2. Kingmaker feels more in the vein of BG1; Wrath in the vein of BG2.
Baldur’s Gate 3 feels very much like a legacy sequel and more in the vein of an improved Dragon Age: Origins
5
u/Valkhir 2d ago
PFKM feels substantially closer to BG1/2 than BG3 does.
You have a much larger world with relatively free exploration and a story that develops over time. You also have the same real time with pause combat (or you can choose turn-based, if you prefer), while BG3 is turn-based, and frankly feels like a drudge in larger battles because you can't even speed up or skip enemy turns.
However, PFKM is not purely your party going on adventures, it's also managing a barony/kingdom. Personally I love that part, but some people don't. I think you can basically disable that aspect of the game (set it to auto) if you don't care for it though.
9
u/Razgriz-B36 2d ago
Pathfinder and PoE are the mechanical and spiritual successor of BG2. BG3 is the successor of DOS2.
I am absolutely biased but I can only recommend the Pathfinder games, WotR is my favourite CRPG for a reason.
3
u/GottlobFrege 2d ago
Pillars of eternity!
3
u/VanceStubbs- 1d ago
Yes! This is the true spiritual successor to IE games. BG, IWD, PS:T - all in one, and not insanely bloated unlike Pathfinder.
3
u/Peter_the_Pillager 2d ago
On my first playthrough of kingmaker, just hit lvl 6. Loving it but damn do I feel like I'm rolling an improbable amount of nat 1s lol.
3
u/Past-Background-7221 2d ago
Played BG1 and 2 in my freshman and senior years in high school. Big part of my memories. I played the FUCK outta Wrath of the Righteous. It’s dense and a lot to learn, but it’s worth it.
3
u/oldmanch1ld 1d ago
They're just different rule sets.
BG3 is DND 5e
Pathfinder kingmaker and WOTR are (Pathfinder) DND 3.5.
The Pathfinder games are closer in rules to the first BG games, and of course BG 1&2 is an inspiration to both franchises. BG3 follows some of the books based on Minsc's life after the events of BG2 that are very jaring if you are very invested in the characters without knowing. I think this is why many fans of the original are put off by the character stories in BG3.
6
u/Necessary_Insect5833 2d ago
Well my personnal recommendation would be BG3.
But there's also Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny that are more like BG1 and 2.
3
u/synthmemory Ho there wanderer stay thy course a while and indulge an old man 2d ago
Is Tyranny like BG? I found it to be kind of the odd man out. I didn't enjoy it that much after I was lured in with the potential of it being a BG-esque experience. I found it to be much more experimental and like they were just kinda exploring RPG ideas. Both PoE games were much more engaging for me
1
u/Qaeta 1d ago
Personally, I've found Tyranny to be the best of the IE inspired games that have come out. I do wish it was longer though, or we got more games in the world. It's definitely experimental (I mean it literally starts you out as being a representative of the "bad guys"), but I enjoyed the twists and turns depending on how you solved various conflicts.
2
u/Witless_Peasant 2d ago
Yes, especially Kingmaker. For me, WotR, despite its technical improvements, suffers from having absurdly high stakes and a system that seems impossible to balance.
2
u/Revolutionary_Sun946 2d ago
Played BG1 when it came out on 5 CDs, and then TOTSC as an expansion disc a year later. For a very long time BG2 was on my Top 5 games list. Even owning them on disc, I still bought the EE versions on Steam.
Absolutely love the Pathfinder games, though admittedly I didn't get into them until after the bugs had mostly been fixed. I waited for about 6 months before buying Rogue Trader.
Owlcat has fantastic attention to detail in their world building, dialogue and companions. Coupled with huge replayability, you will get hundreds and hundreds of hours of gameplay out of the series if you want to try and see everything.
3
2
u/LordGaGa88 2d ago
Pathfinder Wotr and BG2 are my 2 favorite games of all time. BG3 is prolly in the teens or twentys. Go Pathfinder for sure BG3 just seems shallow mechanically.
1
u/Qaeta 1d ago
See, you like crunch, hence preferring Pathfinder. 5E was specifically built for the people who found stuff like 3.5E and Pathfinder overwhelming from a crunch perspective.
Both styles are totally valid, but BG3 was very much NOT aimed at the crunchy players.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't consider 2E particularly crunchy either, people these days just seem to think of it that way because of how anachronistic it is.
1
u/Greyhand13 2d ago
Kingmaker is great! The other one went too hard too fast for me (hey-o), but fck BG3, has nothing to do with the plotline, could have gone Baldurs gate: dark alliance in just recognizing the city as the location, shameless marketing plug
2
u/Hbzin 2d ago edited 2d ago
If you want similar style/gameplay with great writing and character writing, I'd recommend Pillars.
If you want even better writing, dialogue and character writing, but a different style and gameplay, go with BG3.
I'm going to get down voted to hell for this, but the Pathfinder games personally for me do not have good writing. Plot is interesting, thematically it's also interesting, but I don't like the writing. Gameplay is more crunchy as well
1
u/koveras_backwards 2d ago edited 1d ago
Despite Kingmaker (the one I've played) being more similar in presentation to IE games, I'm not sure I'd actually recommend it to an IE fan. I actually ended up disliking it a lot, even though it has elements that I do like. My grievances are as follows:
- I think (3rd edition era) D20 isn't a great system for RTwP. It has aspects that rely on precise tactical positioning/movement that don't translate well into giving orders and having the computer do pathing and such. If the computer decides to walk around some enemy the wrong way, you get hit with AoOs, for example. This applies to other games, too (NWN is a prime offender).
- If you try to avoid the above with the turn based mode, it's pretty clearly tacked on, and sometimes behaves weirdly. E.G. I've had situations where I can't cast a spell two rounds in a row, because that seems to be based on the real time cooldown between spells, and there was like 0.1s of cooldown left on the second round.
- Pathfinder increased the power creep and build spreadsheet aspect of 3.5 D&D to an absurd degree (and I actually like 3.5 when you don't go overboard like this). This is a stark contrast to most IE games. I found myself losing interest with the amount of planning I had to do. And if you want to play on 'actual rules' difficulty, you need to make effective choices because...
- It seemed like lots of enemies were not using their real Pathfinder stats (which I'm generally aware of, because I know a lot about 3.5 D&D). I came across multiple instances where enemies would have massive bonuses. [1] I assume this is meant to counter a combination of the above min/maxing power creep, and a 6 person party. However, adding huge stat bonuses is a flawed approach to that. It just increases the amount of, "either you don't get hit, or instantly die," in combat. So it ends up feeling more arbitrary, and encouraging save scumming (and I don't like it when games expect me to win by cheating).
- Ranged combat felt very bad. As I recall, pretty much every such attack (spells and weapons) seemed to have its range reduced to around 30 feet (less than the maximum range you can throw hammers by the tabletop rules). That's the amount of movement most creatures can do in one round. So there seemed to be no meaningful way to engage enemies with melee up front, and ranged from a reasonably safe distance. Either ranged attacks couldn't hit, or the enemy could close to melee them immediately.
There's probably other complaints I'm forgetting. A common one is that an early dungeon involves a bunch of 'puzzle' enemies (spider swarms). If you don't know the solution, you'll just die. If you do know the solution, it's actually still very tedious to deal with them (hope you don't roll too many misses and run out of alchemist's fire).
Anyhow, some of the aspects above may not bother or even be positives for you, so take that into account. As it was, the positive aspects of the game (I like having to camp every day on the map) could not engage me enough to keep me from abandoning it. Maybe I just didn't find the story/setting interesting either. It's hard to tell.
By contrast, I think BG3 is a lot of fun. It's not exactly like an IE game. But I think it's the best Larian game. They benefited greatly from using someone else's rule set and setting. I had more fun throwing goblins at each other in BG3 than anything in Kingmaker.
[1] The example I remember most vividly is normal owlbears. The official stats for those are +8 to hit (thac0 12) and 1d6+4 damage (so, like 18/90 strength in 2E terms). The one I came across in the game had something like +20 to hit (thac0 0) and 1d6+18 damage (more than 25 strength). That was on normal difficulty.
1
u/Boblaire 2d ago
I really enjoyed Kingmaker but got stuck in some labyrinth. Wa playing on PSNOW which I quit but want to get the game at some point.
It's not as tongue in cheek as BG but it's pretty good and immersive.
1
u/Past-Background-7221 2d ago
Played BG1 and 2 in my freshman and senior years in high school. Big part of my memories. I played the FUCK outta Wrath of the Righteous. It’s dense and a lot to learn, but it’s worth it.
1
u/Fancy_Writer9756 1d ago edited 1d ago
While they have their issues (mostly Kingmaker, its obvious that Owlcat gets better with every title), both Pathfinder games are the ones that carries the torch passed by infinity engine games.
While BG3 is surely good game, it's also very different experience, one quite removed from classic crpg.
1
u/VanceStubbs- 1d ago
Pathfinder games are definitely closer to the infinite engine games, but I hated how bloated kingmaker is. I love the crpg genre and this is the first game I couldn't bring myself to finish.
1
1
u/FaliedSalve 1d ago
just my random thoughts.
I have both. And, honestly, I'm not really sold on either. IMHO what is missing is that both are too linear. They remind me of TOB more than BG1 or 2.
The gaming system in both is different from BG1&2 (obviously) but also differ net from each other.
On that, I'd prefer Pathfinder. But (again my opinion) I think Pathfinder suffers from too many assumptions and timings. For example, I lost the game once because I missed a chest in a corner that had a document that I needed to solve a timed main-mission.
BG3 is better about that, but the side missions have the same issue. One of them, you have to figure out randomly to speak with dead to a soldier on a cot in a random room of an inn that got overrun with undead. Miss that, and you can't solve the quest. Leave the area, and you can't come back.
Personally, I don't think either game has character depth, the way BG1&2 does. And the character backgrounds are a bit much (a 1st level mage who is the lover of a goddess? umm... sure.)
I may try WOR next. Also checking out Divinity.
*Note: actual millage may differ
1
u/TheobromineC7H8N4O2 1d ago
I think Owlcat games are closer in vibe and scratch the original Baldurs' Gate itch more, and this is speaking as a big fan of both them and BG3.
The caution is that Owlcat Pathfinder has a difficult learning curve, which is its own way like BG1, but its something that frustrates a lot of players before they start to get into the grove.
However, BG3 is a very good game for in battle tactical choices, which resembles BG1 emphasis on battle management. Owlcat Pathfinder isn't really that much about tactical decisions, its about builds and preparation before the fight (although if you get the system mastery to understand the interactions with saves and saving throws and the different kinds of armour class you can get a lot of in game mileage about knowing how to adapt your approaches to different enemies).
1
u/ADTurelus 1d ago
The Pathfinder games are good but didn't capture the BG feel for me. I got that a lot more from Obsidian's games (Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny).
The Owlcat games frustrated me on how much has to be done at specific times or in specific ways but you can only find that out via luck, guides, or constant replays. That said I enjoyed the experiences with them.
Of all the above the only one I've actually finished yet (to my shame) is Tyranny twice. The rest are 200 hour plus games which my life doesn't make time for these days.
1
u/Chaotic_Good_Human 2d ago
I'm an avid Pathfinder fan and I will tell you now that you will sink so much time into Pathfinder:Kingmaker and Wraith of the Righteous. However, be prepared for a slog like no other in the end game of both of these games.
BG3 would be a more fun experience in my opinion.
Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny are also incredible games that I think hit the middle ground between BG3 and Pathfinder. And to me they are my favorite isometric RPGs other than BG1 and BG2.
You really should experience all of these games if you can.
1
u/the_dust321 2d ago
Played em all and always find myself playing the classics again, but pathfinder was legit 10/10 for me and very much closer to BG 1 and 2. BG3 is 11/10 but nothing like the originals but obviously a continuation (kinda…). Not mentioned in your post but also amazing is pillars of eternity especially number 2! and pillars2 is the most similiar experience by far.
1
u/Which-Cartoonist4222 2d ago
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I didn't like Pathfinder. Maybe it's Owlcat's design choices (encounters, itemization), but even Normal difficulty felt too much of a munchkin experience. Wasn't a fan of timers and kingdom management either.
Pillars of Eternity hit way closer to me, especially 2 did fantastic job with RTwP combat.
-3
u/EratonDoron What's an EE? 2d ago
3.X may be a terrible ruleset, and I really did hate the mechanics, but even after I gutted the mechanics, Kingmaker scratched the BG itch for me like no other game has since the originals.
WotR wasn't quite as fun, but still worthwhile.
-2
u/TheVagrantWarrior 2d ago
Kingmaker feels like a modern take on BG1 and is ten times better than Baldurs Gate 3.
On the other hand I couldn’t stomach WotR. Too much dialogues and exposition.
40
u/Bishopped 2d ago
I've got hundreds of hours in all of these games. Pathfinder is closer to BG1/2 in terms of engine and style of game.