I played Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous for a good while but I have no idea what the difference is between its system and Baldur Gate's 3. I've been winging it on the story difficulty.
From what I understand pathfinder is based on DnD but adds their own rules on steroids.
I played the Pathfinders games as well and don't understand the rules deep down but it felt less luck-based than DnD. My problem with DnD rules, and maybe it's just 5e idk enough to say, is that you roll a dice for literally everything. You can be a master pickpocket and get caught trying to steal candy from a baby, it's weird. It shouldn't happen.
Also not enough classes and a lot of redundancy. I can't tell the difference between a paladin and a cleric except that you're supposed to RP them differently, which is difficult when everything is decided by the roll of a dice and you get no further input. Lots of emphasis on religion for some reason too, there's like 30 different gods you can choose from and both paladins and clerics (and probably more classes) have to choose a deity and both had (until 5e) to stay in line with their deity's commandments to keep their powers.
I grew up on RPGs like WoW which completely redefined the genre for MMO and PVP play, and I guess I grew accustomed to playing games that riffed off of that. DnD feels very alien, like having the advantage in most games would mean not taking critical hits or getting a guaranteed hit, but in DnD it means you roll a second dice and take the best result. It doesn't even mean a guaranteed hit. The essential fighting class is just called the fighter, and through level ups you RP it as specializing into something that resembles an actual class. At least Pathfinder has a ton of classes lol. Speaking of leveling up, in the DnD books you normally only gain experience from fighting, when most modern RPG video games have you level up through several different actions. In BG3 at least they went around that and using skills like persuasion also give you XP, but to DnD's credit you can just change the rules to suit whatever you like, they're more like guidelines.
Armour class I hear was also simplified in 5e, and I find it even weirder. It's just a vague "armour class" rating which you can achieve either through high skills, or through a heavier armour. There is no distinction between an agile rogue and a decked up paladin. They both have the same chance of evading an attack and that's all armour class does.
Spell slots are 😩 just let me cast spells lol, it's the only thing my character is good at. Instead you save them for when you really really need them (using terrible cantrips until then) because you have to refresh them.
I liked Larian's previous Original Sin and I'm glad they got a break with Baldur's Gate 3, but what I liked there was how you could absolutely break the game if you made the right build (and using environmental effects which they kinda brought back to BG3 but toned down). I'll give that to DnD, at least it's balanced.
pathfinder = D&D 3.5 = stack every modifier under the sun to get a +1+1+1+2+4+2+1 attack bonus so you can kill monsters. multiclass seven different classes to get those bonuses.
baldur's gate 3 = D&D 5e = i dunno be a single class and prebuff i guess
the latter has fewer idiosyncracies and i'm way more comfortable recommending it to normal people.
i don't like dnd rules thats my excuse
I played Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous for a good while but I have no idea what the difference is between its system and Baldur Gate's 3. I've been winging it on the story difficulty.
From what I understand pathfinder is based on DnD but adds their own rules on steroids.
I played the Pathfinders games as well and don't understand the rules deep down but it felt less luck-based than DnD. My problem with DnD rules, and maybe it's just 5e idk enough to say, is that you roll a dice for literally everything. You can be a master pickpocket and get caught trying to steal candy from a baby, it's weird. It shouldn't happen.
Also not enough classes and a lot of redundancy. I can't tell the difference between a paladin and a cleric except that you're supposed to RP them differently, which is difficult when everything is decided by the roll of a dice and you get no further input. Lots of emphasis on religion for some reason too, there's like 30 different gods you can choose from and both paladins and clerics (and probably more classes) have to choose a deity and both had (until 5e) to stay in line with their deity's commandments to keep their powers.
I grew up on RPGs like WoW which completely redefined the genre for MMO and PVP play, and I guess I grew accustomed to playing games that riffed off of that. DnD feels very alien, like having the advantage in most games would mean not taking critical hits or getting a guaranteed hit, but in DnD it means you roll a second dice and take the best result. It doesn't even mean a guaranteed hit. The essential fighting class is just called the fighter, and through level ups you RP it as specializing into something that resembles an actual class. At least Pathfinder has a ton of classes lol. Speaking of leveling up, in the DnD books you normally only gain experience from fighting, when most modern RPG video games have you level up through several different actions. In BG3 at least they went around that and using skills like persuasion also give you XP, but to DnD's credit you can just change the rules to suit whatever you like, they're more like guidelines.
Armour class I hear was also simplified in 5e, and I find it even weirder. It's just a vague "armour class" rating which you can achieve either through high skills, or through a heavier armour. There is no distinction between an agile rogue and a decked up paladin. They both have the same chance of evading an attack and that's all armour class does.
Spell slots are 😩 just let me cast spells lol, it's the only thing my character is good at. Instead you save them for when you really really need them (using terrible cantrips until then) because you have to refresh them.
I liked Larian's previous Original Sin and I'm glad they got a break with Baldur's Gate 3, but what I liked there was how you could absolutely break the game if you made the right build (and using environmental effects which they kinda brought back to BG3 but toned down). I'll give that to DnD, at least it's balanced.
pathfinder = D&D 3.5 = stack every modifier under the sun to get a +1+1+1+2+4+2+1 attack bonus so you can kill monsters. multiclass seven different classes to get those bonuses.
baldur's gate 3 = D&D 5e = i dunno be a single class and prebuff i guess
the latter has fewer idiosyncracies and i'm way more comfortable recommending it to normal people.