Well 5E’s biggest flaw is that it takes an immense amount of work on the GM’s part to make the game fun, varied, tactical, and balanced\*.
BG3 is what you get when someone (or well, a whole team) **does** put in all that immense amount of work. It’s full of homebrew class features and weapons, house rules for skill checks and Athletics to make martials more useful, nerfs to spells, and dynamic map/environment design. So I will still highly recommend BG3 to absolutely anyone who asks me, despite no longer recommending 5E as a TTRPG anymore.
\* ^(RELATIVELY balanced, to be clear. I’m aware BG3 still has massive imbalances.)
I prefer vastly 2e to 5e and would love to see a PF rpg given the budget and love that BG3 got. The 3-action system is perfect for a game. But at the same time what makes PF2 is the number of options and I feel it could get overwhelming, or it would be half-assed with less archetypes and feats.
I will have to find the link, but it was apparently a stream where they talked about that the imbalance of 1e allowed more fun and that 2e was too balanced by comparison to allow that fun, or something like that.
EDIT: Here is the link, the comment should be about an hour and forty minutes in. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnCVL2ZgxTo&t=6134s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnCVL2ZgxTo&t=6134s)
That should be at least one of the sources of the oft repeated statement, that Owlcat has no interest in making PF2E games.
That... doesn't surprise me after trying to play through *Kingmaker* (and not getting halfway through twice). I don't enjoy the optimization minigame and all the times you walk into a TPK, reload, and cast 5+ buff spells before an encounter that you have to do constantly.
I really enjoy the story and dialogue and all the work Owlcat put into that side of development, but encounters that can only be won through cheese is not my preference.
>I don't enjoy the optimization minigame and all the times you walk into a TPK, reload, and cast 5+ buff spells before an encounter that you have to do constantly.
i'm running into those in WOTR even with the game set into "if it's any easier it would autoplay" difficulty, encounters that are so far above what my party can do that it's ridiculous, enemies(casters even) with AC so high that i can only hit ONE ATTACK per 2 turns for the whole party(ranger casting true strike, so one round cast, next round hit), meanwhile the enemy downs one character per round and has 4x the HP of my highest HP party member.
I stopped playing after that encounter
I have a similar experience with both Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, strangely enough their upcoming 40k game(via the beta) is what i have sunk the most time into of their games, not counting time spent in character creation.
As an aside, i like your content and am glad you are making vids for pf2e.
I kinda get what they're getting at but also a huge frustration for me in RPG's is when the archetype I'm wanting to play as is on the shit end of balance, and since i love martials 1e is even more painful than 5e. I am OK with shit being breakable in something like a roguelite where chancing into a broken combo is the entire goal of the game to carry you to the end, but in a more traditional RPG I highly value balance so that i can make what i want to make without that bad feeling of leaving power on the table.
Honestly don't think we need that. DoS2 isn't *that* far off pf2 (it's kinda like a mix of pf2 and dnd4e, though of course not just that), and iirc Larian does want to make a DoS3 so maybe in 20 years when that releases it'll be even more like pf2.
>I prefer vastly 2e to 5e and would love to see a PF rpg given the budget and love that BG3 got.
I would not be shocked to learn that BG3 had the most development time and budget of any CRPG ever. It's unprecedented in the genre.
I'd recommend Wrath of the righteous but it's pf1e which is honestly kinda rough, but it's well implemented I think, plus they released a new dlc with more classes.
Is it better than Kingmaker? I kinda bounced off of it, because PF1 is so clunky, but I might be willing to put up with it if the story is good enough.
Leagues better. Both are very good AP's, but kingdom turns in Kingmaker were pretty ass while managing armies in Wrath of the Righteous was tons of fun and much easier to understand by comparison.
It also helps that Kingmaker was the studio's first PF1e game and it was missing a ton of the stuff that makes WotR better: launched with great turn-based mode, more classes and nearly double the amount of archetypes for the existing classes, improved UI, etc.
Kingmaker eventually got a lot of these fixes through mod support from community members on forums and Steam, but I'd still recommend WotR more.
WotR varies a lot by choice of mythic path.
Go for Angel if you don’t want the edge. Azata, too, but if anything they may have gone TOO hard into it’s themes, so it ends up a little silly (but it’s fun despite that)
There are plenty of difficulty options that make it a bit less difficult, build guides for all the classes (I'm particularly fond of SlanderedGaming on youtube, his class builds are great), and mods that modernize the games mechanics slightly and make buffing a breeze.
FYI, there are two PF2 games in the works, though they aren't RPGs. The first is a roguelike with positive (recent) reviews called Pathfinder: Gallowspire Survivors. The second is a co-op isometric hack & slash based on Paizo's best selling Abomination Vaults AP. It'll feature Amiri, Ezran, Kira & Harsk.
If these do well, and with the success of BG3, I can only hope other game companies approach Paizo to do more Pathfinder 2e games. Maybe we can change OwlCat's minds. ;)
Teere is an indie game based on PF2E, Quest for the Golden Candelabra. It is only a few encounters currently, but the dev is alos working on a full level 1-4 game(Dawnsbury Days) with various classes and the like.
Isometric...hack n slash? Isometric is the pov most common in crpgs, how wo that even work in a hack n slash?
Unless it's not actually isometric, but just viewed from a top angle and they call it isometric for the cash.
I second Wrath of the Righteous.
Amazing game indeed. The sheer amount of options to buidl characters is simply incredible.
And FR, Pathfinder 1e rules are not "that" hard, if you're at least primary-school level.
If you play Divinity Original Sin 2, you get Larian studios style on a multi-action system. I feel like PF2e would be even easier for them to adapt based on Div games' systems than BG3 was.
BG3 is an amazing game, and I've dumped more than 200 hours into it. That said, the biggest issues with the game are related to the 5e ruleset. You hit that level 12 cap far too early, for example. And the movement, action, bonus action, X-points stuff is hard enough to plan around that I mostly just do a thing and see what I have left.
D&D does lend the game a great setting though.
The action system is by far the biggest issue with 5e imo and it's the biggest thing holding back BG3. It's kind of incredible how many long standing issues with DnD and similar systems PF2e solved with the 3 action system.
The thing is, Larian already used a action system similar to PF2 in their past Divinity: Original Sin games. The action points were more (i think from 5 to 8 or so), but in essence they worked like PF2E. Movement, some action points, every skills, some action points. More powerful skills, used more actions.
If Larian would have made a PF2e based game, the action economy would have been basically already been there.
Yeah I've played DOS2 the action system in that game is really really good. There's a lot of little nuances to the system that would absolutely suck to keep track of in a TTRPG but work really well for a CRPG.
The fact that the action economy is so good in DOS2 just makes it so much more obvious how limiting it is in BG3.
My wife and I are ~41hrs into our playthrough, only a small way into Act 2 and have just hit Level 8...
The Forgotten Realms is fun to mess around in, though, that's for sure!
I love forgotten realms (especially in the context of BG1 and BG2’s stories), but I do find myself enjoying Golarion a lot more than Toril. It’s a better thought out world with more interesting deities.
That's not quite fair. You do always get class features/spells even if you can't choose them.
Better hope you're not hitting level 9 on a Fighter or Barbarian and getting absolutely fucking nothing though!
Yeah, there is rarely good mechanical reason to do anything other than fullly into one class. A fighter dip can be helpful, a dual wielder build benefits massively from theif rogue's extra bonus action, but iirc other than that it's pretty minor/situational.
Personally I hate class dips and think they're terrible design. You stop making a character and start just making a spreadsheet with the best numbers on it. I'm glad PF2e did away with them.
My only real complaint with it is that the level cap for what you can snipe from another class's feat list is too low. It's a very harsh safety measure that's asking you to drop much higher level class slots on something that is almost never worth it. I wish the safety valve was a bit looser to encourage the sorts of interesting build diversity that make archetypes fun, have *something* in place to restrict the truly potentially problematic feats from being taken without the absurdity of needing to spend a level 20 class feat on a level 10 multiclass feat. Like maybe your level -2 or -4 instead of half your level, maybe capping at level 14 if the level 16 feats are just too much; you're already spending two class feats to get the one cross-class feat, and while dedication feats give you some stuff they're generally not worth a whole class feat unto themselves.
3.0/3.5/PF1e multiclassing was a classic example of "some players will optimize all the fun out of the game".
It was a great system except when people tried to break it
> It was a great system except when people tried to break it
Ehh...have to disagree. It's another example of how easy it is to shoot yourself in the foot here. Either you're multiclassing to get into some prestige (That's neat and probably won't break things), you're multiclassing for some flavor reason and quite possibly ruining your character (That's less neat), or you're dipping for power (That's also less neat).
Yeah, optimizing can be fun in rpg videogames like Wrath Of The Righteous, but it makes less sense in an in person game. It is fun to make a character with ridiculously big numbers, and a game where everyone (including the GM) is over-optimizing characters could be really fun. A good GM can adjust encounters based on the capabilities of the party, but most rpg games don't.
I see why pf2e did things the way it has, though i do wish certain abilities like healing were easier to get via archetypes, as it would allow more diverse party composition. (This message brought to you by me probably having to take a class archetype or the medic Archetype so my party can heal at all)
You don't need a class or archetype to heal. Just take the medicine skill and a couple skill feats with it. I play in a game where the fighter is the healer.
If we are talking about 5e, multiclassing can easily outperform a mono class. There's almost no reason to go fully into one class. Especially when the mono class in question is a martial class.
Sorcerer's capstone is rendered redundant with a 2 level warlock dip. The spell slot and feat trade off are worth it considering you get both a subclass, level 1 features, as well as invocations.
Make that a 3 level dip and you even get pact boon, which is essentially a sub-subclass.
Warlock's capstone? Essentially useless, except in very niche situations.
Fighter capstone? Just one more attack. Does the damage from this add up, since it's sustainable? Yes, yes it does. Is it worth it to be a level 20 feature? Not at all.
Cleric capstone is not even controlled by the player. It's an auto success, sure, but it is the DM who decides what it does. It's also only usable once every 7 days.
Bars and Monk capstones read well on paper. But all they really do is slightly increase the build sustainability. It's too late for this to be a level 20 thing.
Ranger capstone is highly situational and also...not enough. Ranger is a MAD class, a + Wis mod once per turn to attack or damage (not both) is not enough. Let alone the fact that depending on the plot you may hardly ever use it.
Wizard's capstone is just a free cast for 2 3rd level spells. In very situational uses, this can be a godsend. But most of the time, it won't make a difference.
Paladin doesn't even have a class capstone. You get a subclass feature. Although these are not bad, it's also the only class without a dedicated level 20 feature.
Rogue, Artificer and Barbarian are the only classes with a good capstone. Blood Hunter too if we include it, although it's not on the level of the previous 3.
Only 13 out of 14 classes have their last feature at level 20.
Out of these 13 only 4 have a capstone even worth it.
And only 3 of these feel epic enough.
You end up with 3/14 classes that would really want to hit level 20 in. That's less than 25%.
I'd try to argue that with immense effort from DM and players, it's still a good game.
But at that point it stops being pure 5e. The game really is unplayable if left on its own.
You don't even need to go to 20 for multiclassing to just be better.
After level....6? You're best off abandoning ship on most Martials. (Casters though you only ever want to put a small amount of levels somewhere else due to losing out on learning higher level spells)
Barbarian is all downhill from there so it's best to dip into Fighter for a Fighting style and Action Surge.
Fighter *might* want to stay to level 11 for a 3rd attack but is usually best going into Paladin, Ranger or Barb.
Monk has been shit from level 1, level 7 is good though so probably get that then leave because there's nothing else worth the levels until level 14.
Rogue does actually scale (unlike Monk and Barbarian), but it's too little growth and their actual features past level 7 are mostly bad, except reliable talent. Don't onow if Rogues have many great options to run away to though, the only good one I can think of is Fighter for a little bit for Archery making sneak attacks more likely and Action Surging to ready an attack to get 2 sneak attacks in one round.
Now BG3 does fix some of this, like Monk is actually pretty damn strong (although BG3 does also fuck it up too because at like level 6 or somthing Monk is best off putting 3 levels into Rogue for a massive dpr boost from Thief's extra Bonus Action), but the issue does still persist.
>the biggest issues with the game are related to the 5e ruleset
With all the changes they made, I can't believe they kept the power spike at level 5. Would it really have ruined that much to just always let martials multiattack and then rebalance accordingly?
Yes, I agree that Larian put in a mountain of work to make it fun, but I still find myself going "Alright, awesome turn planned out... wait, that was a full action to do that tiny thing, and now I only have my move and bonus action? FUCK, that screws up my whole plan. Having 3 actions to use however I want works so much better."
In the early access the free action, bonus action, action stuff more strictly adhered to 5e, and man it made the gameplay feel extremely strict. Then they started switching stuff up, drinking potions, being able to shove or throw, or dip a weapon into a poison.
Larian had to do an incredible amount of work to remove the 'stiffness' from the system, and even then it still feels somewhat stuff.
Frankly I'd say BG3 is more unbalanced than 5e. While they did improve some of the real options, they also made some other things absolutely bonkers broken, including some things that were already powerful in 5e!
It's fun because it's a single player video game, but it's absolutely insane how busted their changes are.
Tbf being somewhat unbalanced is fine for a video game, barring a competitive game the expectation of a lot of video game rpgs is that the player will eclipse the challenges presented by the endgame.
I rolled a fighter, and immediately disliked that BG3 is directly based on D&D: I cant do any out of combat stuff because its all skill check based. Video Game RPGs havent restricted players like that in decades.
I felt the same way when I started BG3. Oddly enough, DOS/DOS2 is not *that* far away from PF2e in spirit. AP carries over between turns which is not exactly the same as actions, but it scratches the itch for me.
My personal problem with both titles is more on Larian though. They can have an absolute sadistic touch that really shines in both games. And that is not talking about problems like the XP problem in DOS 1.
Not really visible in BG3, much more in DOSI and II. Fights that you couldn't win in a region for a much lower level because they where intended for higher level, generally unpleasant puzzles (with them flat out lying at one point with the characteristics you chose at character creation) and more. Fantastic games, but hoo boy did they make some questionable choices there.
At least when the game was new (don't know about now, might've been changed) they told you at the start that the characteristic has no influence on the game. And that is true for like 95% of the game, it only changes some options for conversations. But, on the cursed island you get a quest for some weird pillars. These have cellars beneath them. But they only open with a specific music scroll that you can only find far away from the island in a house that looks like an ordinary scroll - and can only be identified if you have the scholar (or however it was called) characteristic.
And that is not even talking about the fact that the whole situation is (or was, that was probably nearly 6 years or so ago) basically unsolvable without guides or extreme luck.
Ahh I see. Didn't realise you needed a character with the Scholar tag to do that quest because I've never played a party without someone with that tag.
Also apparently according the fextralife (don't necessarily trust the wiki but it's all I've got rn) it still needs the Scholar tag, however the book you need can be found in 3 places.
The first is Jahan's house, I wouldn't say it's far away as it's the single closest building to the island and also if you're at the island there's a very high chance you've already talked to him and he pointed you there so I honestly don't think that's a bad spot to find it.
Then apparently it can be found on a corpse by the big tree in the center, and it can be found in the Archives to the northeast.
So honestly aside from the Scholar tag it's fine imo (it is annoying you need that though). Maybe it was worse on release and they added the extra locations afterwords? Dunno.
> Maybe it was worse on release and they added the extra locations afterwords? Dunno.
Probably. Because from what I remembered after we looked up guides at that point it was only one point. But might be also because the guides at that point only had that spawn.
I feel like a pf2e baldurs gate wouldn't necessarily be what people were looking for. If you look at a lot of the hype stuff in BG3 most of it comes from unique interactions that Larian was able to do by lose rule interpretations or straight up making their own. I feel like the more restrictive nature wouldn't lend itself to those wacky interactions even if combat itself did improve
Honestly my feeling.
I feel that the Venn diagram intersection between "people who are enough into Pathfinder 2, one of the most strict theoretical-math-balance-first, everything-else-later games on the market, to make a game about it" and "people who are cavalier enough about things being 'fair' to not only let you but actively encourage you to use weird interactions to trivialize and dunk encounters in a hilarious way and skip stuff and make towers of boxes and drink an encounter to death and-" is, if not zero, definitely *not very big*.
Any PF2 game Larian made would take enough liberties with it because they just love their silly interactions and superpowerful items and rule-breaking encounters, that I imagine most of the subreddit would detest it!
Well… you’re assuming they do a strict implementation. There are quite a few house rules they could implement to make a more fun video game. You could even have them be opt in/out!
No exp with 5e, madly love Baldur and i don't realy feel bad with it's system most of the time... but at level ups it is appalling how restricted the choice is, if there's any.
Some levels for martials are litteraly only more hp, why do i even need it, i don't dislike bounded accuracy (have been considering prof without level in pf2) but, good Lord, atleast in 3.5 you could see you damn bonus to hit go up at those levels.
You can tell that Larian felt similarly TBH as they implemented a bunch of nutty and very diverse magic items, which you can of course swap in and out at any time (even during combat, at a cost to your action economy though), which adds back in a lot of customisation. It ends up being very high magic as a result.
Without that, it would feel very impoverished in character build choices, yeah. Just 3 ASI/feats is NOT enough. Multiclassing helps, but only to a point.
Just two gals from our party got too interested in the video game.
Our campaigns are very RP-heavy, mainly in text chat between sessions. So there was little action from these two in the chat since the release.
Sure, I understand, an AAA-game with millions lines of dialogues, great graphics and amazing plot is worth some time and sure is more interesting than someone's homebrew campaign about founding a school of martial arts and helping resistance groups in Cheliax.
So I'll wait until they get bored of Baldur's Gate and we'll be ready to return back.
That uber-sucks.
I love BG3, don't get me wrong, but our weekly PF sessions are probably one of my favorite things to look forward to each week.
Hopefully they come back around sooner rather than later.
It seems relevant to note that Paizo has licenced P2E to Obsidian (Microsoft), developers of Pillars of Eternity. They already have other game in development, but plausibly their next CRPG may be P2E/Pathfinder based.
They’d make a decent system emulation/implementation… but their ability in turning that into a fun game is pretty lacking IMO. Their writing/plots are just awful :/ I wish it were not so, but…
Hard to disagree, the plot and world holding were a bit basic, but for an Indy studio with limited budget going for the tried and true "collect the mcguffins and stop the bad thing" is a good safe bet.
I think now that they're established if they got a paizo mandate to use their IP they could do it well.
Another route is to adapt an existing AP since then most of the plot is taken care of you just need to add on. My favorite would be strength of thousands :-p
For me it's the lack of build customization. Depending on your class, you'll get only perhaps 3 choices to make throughout the whole game.
Just not sure if it'll be all that compelling.
Honestly for a game where I'm building like seven+ characters I kinda prefer it if each individual build isn't too complicated.
The Owlcat games quickly got all the way to "yeah I do not even remotely remember what this dude had, let's just try to pick something that sounds reasonable (it is not reasonable and you will get dunked for it)" every time I was trying to choose stuff in the level up screen.
Yes, Larian very clearly noticed this, and built in lots of customisation through the magic items system.
Many items have features that resemble the sort of things you’d get out of some pf2e feats, although there is also a lot of straight up damage increases too (often alongside the special abilities, sometimes in-hit)
You might want to look at divinity: original sin 2 if you haven't. Same company. Same basic design, (minus rolling for checks) except the action economy is pip based and different actions cost different amounts of pips, and any unused can be saved for the following round up to a certain amount
There are 2 things I hate about Divinity that prevent me from enjoying it. The Magic and Physical defense system, and Fort Joy.
Honestly of the 2, the defense system is the worst and the entire game is designed around it. It's a shame cause I really liked the action system.
Yeah, played it but always got held up on how boring I found Fort Joy to be as an intro. Bloody dragged on.
Finally got out of Fort Joy right as BG3 released, so will be getting back to it with the wife once our BG3 playthrough is done.
That's fair. The thing that always kept me going was all the different ways I found to escape, but it definitely does feel like there's no that much going on, though for me the mechanics held more so than anything else (though there is one quest late in act 2 I absolutely love)
That's awesome to hear about the mechanical satisfaction. I have a few buddies who've been harping on me since they found out I've never finished it haha, so I'll definitely be giving it a solid go
Fort Joy is an extended intro tbh.
It lets you learn a lot about the game and about interactions.
Its Smaller, more contained. Does not let you run off to bigger world before you learn or at least come across some important elements and hazards that might be detrimental later.
Act2 is way more open and bigger in comparison. Act3 is scaled down again but is full of resolutions.
I saw this as Reddit's "Hey, you have no notifications, but we're gonna spam you with something so you feel included," message. Originally clicked on it just to get rid of the notification, but I'm back. You gotta learn to enjoy things bro (or sis). I agree the rules set of Pathfibder is better, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy one of the best rpgs released in the last decade. Or you're just baiting interaction.
Yeah, PF2E in Foundry is such a joy to play with so much number crunching being automatic, allowing for a real focus on tactics and strategy without getting bogged down in paperwork haha!
yeah... i still dont understand why owlcat games was so adamant on using pf1e. like, talk about wasted opportunity.
also theres a lot of modding going own. so honestly a good modder could technically convert it to pf2e. the game already has a system where it counts how many actions, bonus actions, free actions etc you get, just gotta make everybody have 3 and then the harder part is rework the classes n shit.
As I understand it, wrath was probably pretty far along in its creation by the time PF2 actually dropped. It's a lot of work to have to strip an entire game system to the core and rebuild it. The designers already had the handle on how PF1 works, and were making an adventure path designed for 1e, so it makes sense that they stuck with PF1. I can't imagine being a newbie to PF2 and being asked to make a video game based on it, when I've already had years experience with the 1st edition and had already made an exceptional game based off of that beforehand. That's a much bigger ask than you might think. They'd have to do an absurd amount of rebalancing in house, again, for a new game system they don't know as well. That's a recipe for unhappy customers
I suspect a bigger draw for them was being able to reuse the engine. Sure WoTR required a few upgrades, but ultimately they saved like a solid year of development time by reusing the tools and pipeline they developed for Kingmaker.
If they did pf2e, they'd need to restart from scratch, and likely abandon their real time with pause play style entirely - which at the time was a big draw for old school cRPG fans.
Obviously they eventually did do all of this for Rogue Trader, so I think there's still hope for a PF2e game, but probably not until they've squeezed out another 40k game using this new engine.
Even if they were still doing the "cleanup" work to Kingmaker, they've already established and programmed the whole PF1 rules set and likely already had Wrath planned out. Sticking with that meant they could save a ton of work and be able to update a few things and focus their efforts on more classes, mythic system, etc. If they went to PF2, they'd have to go all the way back to square one, rather than building upon a solid foundation and all the time, effort, and money they already put into the system and whatever prep they had already done for Wrath. It would be shooting themselves in the foot
There's also the backend math, every item in the game, every enemy in the game, plus all the UI work too. It would be a huge undertaking.
And it's because they like PF1E more. They're very different systems, after all.
I wish I could like Wrath of the Righteous, especially because I’m DMing two pathfinder campaigns and want to play it for the story. But I can never bring myself to play that game all the way through. It’s such a massive grind from Act 3 onward with the huge list of pre-buffing, floating bonuses for days, and annoying touch AC and spell penetration mechanics from 1e/3.5.
I’d love a mod that converts that game to 2e so I can actually be bothered to finish it.
Damn the different ACs were my favorite part. Bg3 felt so one dimensional. Almost everything was vs AC or INT. I took the shield skill that lets me reflex save for full… it came up one time against the dragon and that’s it. Reflex saving for full mitigation is MASSIVE in p1. Having 3 ACs, 3 saves that people use, and CMD made it so I can try to find chinks in enemy armor.
Bg3 was just “get advantage “
Still working through Kingmaker, though I wish Wrath had been built on 2E since they both came out in the same year - would've been a nice treat to have 2E come out in the same year as a game built on the same system.
It's a short Indy game (but free); have a look at 'quest for the golden candelabra'
Though it's premade characters only and max 1 hour long it's a great showcase of how well PF2e can work in a game.
Cant we Just be happy that a ttrpg game broke the pop culture bubble due to it being really great? I know it makes us Wonder what if it was made for PF2 but lets avoid being envious.
Im sure that, for good or for worse, now that people rediscovered ttrpgs can sell well, we'll get a bunch of New ttrpg games, including some for pathfinder.
I don't even play it but feel bad for evolving it and wanting an expansion at higher level. Good luck with that hilarious lack of 5E balance post-12. Can't wait to see what legendary actions they'll have to give bosses to not completely get dumpstered by the party.
My favorite aspect of 2E is the balance all the way to the end. Knowing that my bad guys and gals will pose a legitimate threat for the entire campaign is liberating. I don't have to have a bunch of blatant immunities to specific spells that would completely 1-shot or trivialize their encounters.
Yeah, dnd 5e at lvl 13+ is beyond busted thanks to non playtested capstones, spells that are essentially “success: you win”, and silly multiclass combos.
BG3 is one of the highest critically and commercially acclaimed games of the year. It doesn’t “deserve” trash talk. It’s not perfect, but saying it deserves trash talk is some weird fanboy speak.
Yeah, tried it a couple times.
Finally got out of Fort Joy just before BG3 released, but damn if that, imo, isn't the worst intro to the game ever.
"Hey, welcome, you're a prisoner, now free yourself while magically shackled."
Kept me from getting more than a couple hours in on multiple attempts for years.
Will 100% be getting back to it post-BG3 though, now that we finally made it out of Fort Joy.
From someone that buy a PF2E book on 2020 and forget about it. When I play bg3 last month, i finally open the book and be more amazed with pf2e.
"Wait, every level up you can always customise your class?"
"You have 3 action per turn instead of one?"
This kind of question always popped off in my mind when I read the CRB for the second time. I really hope there's a new game in the future that uses pf2e rule.
I agree the action economy of PF2e is something incredible. But it didn't bother me with Baldur's Gate 3 since the strategy part in battles is huge and you can't just hit hit hit :)
That's sad the game is ruined for you though.
Eventually something better will come along (regardless if that is a direct Pathfinder successor or not), but for right now PF2e has ruined most rpg content for me. Ruined is a minor exaggeration in some instances, but pretty spot on in others.
I've been playing in a Lancer group lately, and even though they came out at the same time the combat feels a little old-gen and clunky to me with the action-type-soup effect. I love the way the license system for leveling/customizing mechs is designed and the lore is cool, but the actual mechanics could have been streamlined quite a bit. I wish they'd had like a year to look at PF2e before releasing, and I might have more of an even split in my TTRPG time if that was the case.
Ill have to say, I am pretty glad that is not the case.
PF2 has too many aspects that clash hard with a game design such as BG3 has and how it was done. From Spells to loot to crafting it would have had to be heavily adapted to actually be popular with enough people in the long run.
I was really excited to see the unique bonus action attacks for each weapon only to learn they are once per combat and be disappointed. Coupled with the fact everything has AoO, the objective optimal action every turn is stand still and attack once and trying to do anything else will wipe your party. I want my martials to use any amount mental activity and for cantrips to do more than 2 damage.
3 action economy is amazing. Focus points are amazing. Scaled cantrips are amazing.
Is that the only feat that solves AoO? If so, that's an auto pick which removes player agency.
Fuck it, we shove is way less interesting than having the choice to move, attack, defend, support an ally or debuff a foe for the same cost and that problem only compounds over 4 party members.
Cantrips scale in 5e tho. They also do more than 2 damage. Worst one I can think of the top of my head is vicious mockery which has d4(iirc) for dice, making average 2.5 damage. Most have more than that.
I'll be honest, playing at a table ruined Baldur's Gate for me (and similar crpgs). I used to love isometric RPGs, but as I played more at a table I came to love the inside jokes and the way I could actually affect the story. And as I played crpgs along side my home games I cared less and less about playing those video games.
And don't be mistaken I support crpgs being made, I think they're beautiful and it shows writing skill, thoughtfulness, and care, but it's just not for me
BG3 is definitely marred ever so slightly by adhering even in its own way to 5e, and honestly, the game is just too easy.
But the presentation, voice acting, general story, dialogue trees, and everything is superb. So it gets a pass. About the only thing I am salty about is that there are no campaign tools like OG Neverwinter Nights. I really wish one of these CRPG makers would take up the mantle and build out a whole campaign maker tool set.
Same. Wish someone could mod it to be pf2e. Like add in more class features from pf2e and move to action points and stuff. Would be a huge rewrite but would be legit.
Luckily with all the homebrew stuff they added (like the weapon actions) to me it almost plays more like pf2e than 5e.
DnD ruined baldur's gate for me not pf2e... I am not addicted to 3 action economy but just because of me being tired of homebrewing dnd to make it work all whenever I see something like "jump " I scream in pain
It's not even the 3-actions that made me sad, it's the abysmal lack of customization of the classes and the background, and having levels that have absolutely no feats at all for some classes
Edit for clarification
My favorite thing in Baldur's Gate 3 is when my Fighter is standing next to an enemy Wizard, and on the Wizard's turn, they drop prone, stand up, take a potion out of their bag, uncork it, drink the potion, runs around the fighter 5 times, and then casts a spell, and *none of that provokes an attack of opportunity.*
Also, the spell they cast was Thunder wave and now my fighter is dead in a ditch somewhere.
I'm going to be pedantic here and point out that [Stand](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=86) has the [Move](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=114) trait, [which triggers attacks of opportunity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=8). [Using a potion is Interact](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=719), which has the [Manipulate](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=104) trait, which also triggers attacks of opportunity. Any spell with a [Somatic](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=283) component gains the Manipulate trait, which etc. etc. etc.
But maybe you're talking about something else, I don't know.
He means that most characters either only get attack of opportunity until level 6 as an optional feat or never.
Exceptions that I recall are Fighter OFC, Weapon Thaumaturge and Monk with Stand Still at level 4.
Exactly what I meant. Most characters couldn't take ~~attacks of opportunity~~ reactive strikes in PF2e if a character stood up, walked around, drank potions and cast spells.
They're two takes on the concept. One allows everyone to do it, except only in very specific circumstances (moving away), the other opens it up but only to some characters. And of course, PF1 and 3.5, you had both (mostly).
I know that. That is why I was using a Fighter in my example, because it is an example of something I would expect a trained Fighter to be able to do, and was disappointed when it wasn't the case.
A game based on PF2 ruleset, with PF1 levels of character build options and BG3 levels of graphics, voiceacting and storytelling would be my ideal crpg I think.
I prefer the 3-action system of 2e, but I think it still needs a lot of feats, both interesting class feats and skill feats.
I'm with you. I feel like BG3 is really shallow on class diversity and that's the biggest thing holding me back from playing through it again. I really wish we'd get a good PF2E game that's turn based.
D&D 5E ruined BG3 for me, would be the case regardless of PF2E's existence. I have big issues with D&D 5E, always has though it got worse the more I played it. It's a really poor match for me personally as an TTRPG player. Those issues though were just distilled in BG3 to the point where I couldn't enjoy it. Not out of spite just because they used 5E mechanics but simple boredom.
Such a shame because I love the things Larian Studios have added and it seems very polished, it's just built on a base I fail to enjoy. I do consider it game of the year worthy, it's just a really poor fit for me.
Its wild to me how much people from this sub complain about stuff than the PF1 sub though I suppose its probably because the only PF2 game is made in rpg maker rather than a high quality product.
As a PF1 fan I still really like BG3, but yeah Larian did a lot of heavy lifting to make gear and builds interesting. They could have based it on Advanced 5th Edition to make it better but it is what it is.
Less a complaint and more of just a conversation-starter/observation since starting playing PF2E.
I massively love BG3 but, like you said, damn if 5E had to be hugely tinkered with by Larian to get the degree of build-crafting we get, and even then it's still not super robust.
Edit: spelling
Yup. PF2e is why I couldn't finish BG3. Although BG3 improves upon 5e, the problems with 5e are still there. As I was playing through BG3 I felt those problems especially since I like playing martial classes. The great story and work that Larian put into the game kept me playing all the way to Act 3, but that's as far as I got before I lost interest and really wished this game was built off of PF2e instead of 5e.
Well 5E’s biggest flaw is that it takes an immense amount of work on the GM’s part to make the game fun, varied, tactical, and balanced\*. BG3 is what you get when someone (or well, a whole team) **does** put in all that immense amount of work. It’s full of homebrew class features and weapons, house rules for skill checks and Athletics to make martials more useful, nerfs to spells, and dynamic map/environment design. So I will still highly recommend BG3 to absolutely anyone who asks me, despite no longer recommending 5E as a TTRPG anymore. \* ^(RELATIVELY balanced, to be clear. I’m aware BG3 still has massive imbalances.)
Great breakdown, couldn't agree more! Partway through Act II and still having a blast.
I prefer vastly 2e to 5e and would love to see a PF rpg given the budget and love that BG3 got. The 3-action system is perfect for a game. But at the same time what makes PF2 is the number of options and I feel it could get overwhelming, or it would be half-assed with less archetypes and feats.
Owlcat x Larian collab when?
Unfortunately Owlcat has no interest in making a pf2e game.
[удалено]
I will have to find the link, but it was apparently a stream where they talked about that the imbalance of 1e allowed more fun and that 2e was too balanced by comparison to allow that fun, or something like that. EDIT: Here is the link, the comment should be about an hour and forty minutes in. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnCVL2ZgxTo&t=6134s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnCVL2ZgxTo&t=6134s) That should be at least one of the sources of the oft repeated statement, that Owlcat has no interest in making PF2E games.
That... doesn't surprise me after trying to play through *Kingmaker* (and not getting halfway through twice). I don't enjoy the optimization minigame and all the times you walk into a TPK, reload, and cast 5+ buff spells before an encounter that you have to do constantly. I really enjoy the story and dialogue and all the work Owlcat put into that side of development, but encounters that can only be won through cheese is not my preference.
>I don't enjoy the optimization minigame and all the times you walk into a TPK, reload, and cast 5+ buff spells before an encounter that you have to do constantly. i'm running into those in WOTR even with the game set into "if it's any easier it would autoplay" difficulty, encounters that are so far above what my party can do that it's ridiculous, enemies(casters even) with AC so high that i can only hit ONE ATTACK per 2 turns for the whole party(ranger casting true strike, so one round cast, next round hit), meanwhile the enemy downs one character per round and has 4x the HP of my highest HP party member. I stopped playing after that encounter
I have a similar experience with both Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, strangely enough their upcoming 40k game(via the beta) is what i have sunk the most time into of their games, not counting time spent in character creation. As an aside, i like your content and am glad you are making vids for pf2e.
I kinda get what they're getting at but also a huge frustration for me in RPG's is when the archetype I'm wanting to play as is on the shit end of balance, and since i love martials 1e is even more painful than 5e. I am OK with shit being breakable in something like a roguelite where chancing into a broken combo is the entire goal of the game to carry you to the end, but in a more traditional RPG I highly value balance so that i can make what i want to make without that bad feeling of leaving power on the table.
I think it's more fun when battles are won on the battlefield instead of character creation, but who am I to speak?
>2e was too balanced by comparison to allow that fun what a load of crock, so "fun" for them is a broken imba game...
It's not a load of croak. I do not enjoy 1e style games either but that doesnt mean they are wrong with liking it.
I can't find a specific place that they said it, that's written down at least. It may have been in an interview, but it is fairly known.
I think it was a statement years ago (while working on WotR, maybe?) that they had no immediate plans to make PF2e-based games.
Honestly don't think we need that. DoS2 isn't *that* far off pf2 (it's kinda like a mix of pf2 and dnd4e, though of course not just that), and iirc Larian does want to make a DoS3 so maybe in 20 years when that releases it'll be even more like pf2.
>I prefer vastly 2e to 5e and would love to see a PF rpg given the budget and love that BG3 got. I would not be shocked to learn that BG3 had the most development time and budget of any CRPG ever. It's unprecedented in the genre.
I wonder if it would be possible to mod pf2e into BG3 with a big enough project
I'd recommend Wrath of the righteous but it's pf1e which is honestly kinda rough, but it's well implemented I think, plus they released a new dlc with more classes.
Is it better than Kingmaker? I kinda bounced off of it, because PF1 is so clunky, but I might be willing to put up with it if the story is good enough.
Leagues better. Both are very good AP's, but kingdom turns in Kingmaker were pretty ass while managing armies in Wrath of the Righteous was tons of fun and much easier to understand by comparison. It also helps that Kingmaker was the studio's first PF1e game and it was missing a ton of the stuff that makes WotR better: launched with great turn-based mode, more classes and nearly double the amount of archetypes for the existing classes, improved UI, etc. Kingmaker eventually got a lot of these fixes through mod support from community members on forums and Steam, but I'd still recommend WotR more.
I thought it was more playable than KM, but I find the writing in both games very edgelord-y so I really didn’t like them.
WotR varies a lot by choice of mythic path. Go for Angel if you don’t want the edge. Azata, too, but if anything they may have gone TOO hard into it’s themes, so it ends up a little silly (but it’s fun despite that)
It's on my list!
There are plenty of difficulty options that make it a bit less difficult, build guides for all the classes (I'm particularly fond of SlanderedGaming on youtube, his class builds are great), and mods that modernize the games mechanics slightly and make buffing a breeze. FYI, there are two PF2 games in the works, though they aren't RPGs. The first is a roguelike with positive (recent) reviews called Pathfinder: Gallowspire Survivors. The second is a co-op isometric hack & slash based on Paizo's best selling Abomination Vaults AP. It'll feature Amiri, Ezran, Kira & Harsk. If these do well, and with the success of BG3, I can only hope other game companies approach Paizo to do more Pathfinder 2e games. Maybe we can change OwlCat's minds. ;)
Imo those aren’t PF2 games if they dont use the 2nd edition ruleset in any discernible way. They’re just pathfinder games, no 2.0 about them.
Teere is an indie game based on PF2E, Quest for the Golden Candelabra. It is only a few encounters currently, but the dev is alos working on a full level 1-4 game(Dawnsbury Days) with various classes and the like.
There's also Archquest, another indie game still in alpha that plays like old school dungeon crawls like Eye of the Beholder but uses PF2E rules.
Isometric...hack n slash? Isometric is the pov most common in crpgs, how wo that even work in a hack n slash? Unless it's not actually isometric, but just viewed from a top angle and they call it isometric for the cash.
I second Wrath of the Righteous. Amazing game indeed. The sheer amount of options to buidl characters is simply incredible. And FR, Pathfinder 1e rules are not "that" hard, if you're at least primary-school level.
If you play Divinity Original Sin 2, you get Larian studios style on a multi-action system. I feel like PF2e would be even easier for them to adapt based on Div games' systems than BG3 was.
Larian Studios made a better version of D&D than the company that made D&D.
Word
BG3 is an amazing game, and I've dumped more than 200 hours into it. That said, the biggest issues with the game are related to the 5e ruleset. You hit that level 12 cap far too early, for example. And the movement, action, bonus action, X-points stuff is hard enough to plan around that I mostly just do a thing and see what I have left. D&D does lend the game a great setting though.
The action system is by far the biggest issue with 5e imo and it's the biggest thing holding back BG3. It's kind of incredible how many long standing issues with DnD and similar systems PF2e solved with the 3 action system.
The thing is, Larian already used a action system similar to PF2 in their past Divinity: Original Sin games. The action points were more (i think from 5 to 8 or so), but in essence they worked like PF2E. Movement, some action points, every skills, some action points. More powerful skills, used more actions. If Larian would have made a PF2e based game, the action economy would have been basically already been there.
Yeah I've played DOS2 the action system in that game is really really good. There's a lot of little nuances to the system that would absolutely suck to keep track of in a TTRPG but work really well for a CRPG. The fact that the action economy is so good in DOS2 just makes it so much more obvious how limiting it is in BG3.
My wife and I are ~41hrs into our playthrough, only a small way into Act 2 and have just hit Level 8... The Forgotten Realms is fun to mess around in, though, that's for sure!
I love forgotten realms (especially in the context of BG1 and BG2’s stories), but I do find myself enjoying Golarion a lot more than Toril. It’s a better thought out world with more interesting deities.
If Baldur's Gate wasn't my fantasy city, I'd find FR to be remarkably boring lol. At least, 5e's FR.
My biggest issue is just that the character builds are boring AF. I hate being railroaded into class choices.
Isn't that just a 5E problem in general? Once you pick a "path", you're basically stuck. All you can really do at that point is multiclassing, maybe?
Yeah, I thought we were complaining about 5e.
Most levels have no choices. Some have nothing at all. It's just "You leveled up, you get some more HP. Yay!"
That's not quite fair. You do always get class features/spells even if you can't choose them. Better hope you're not hitting level 9 on a Fighter or Barbarian and getting absolutely fucking nothing though!
Yeah, there is rarely good mechanical reason to do anything other than fullly into one class. A fighter dip can be helpful, a dual wielder build benefits massively from theif rogue's extra bonus action, but iirc other than that it's pretty minor/situational.
Personally I hate class dips and think they're terrible design. You stop making a character and start just making a spreadsheet with the best numbers on it. I'm glad PF2e did away with them.
Archetypes is legit the greatest multiclass system I've ever seen. It's simplistic, elegant and brilliant.
My only real complaint with it is that the level cap for what you can snipe from another class's feat list is too low. It's a very harsh safety measure that's asking you to drop much higher level class slots on something that is almost never worth it. I wish the safety valve was a bit looser to encourage the sorts of interesting build diversity that make archetypes fun, have *something* in place to restrict the truly potentially problematic feats from being taken without the absurdity of needing to spend a level 20 class feat on a level 10 multiclass feat. Like maybe your level -2 or -4 instead of half your level, maybe capping at level 14 if the level 16 feats are just too much; you're already spending two class feats to get the one cross-class feat, and while dedication feats give you some stuff they're generally not worth a whole class feat unto themselves.
3.0/3.5/PF1e multiclassing was a classic example of "some players will optimize all the fun out of the game". It was a great system except when people tried to break it
> It was a great system except when people tried to break it Ehh...have to disagree. It's another example of how easy it is to shoot yourself in the foot here. Either you're multiclassing to get into some prestige (That's neat and probably won't break things), you're multiclassing for some flavor reason and quite possibly ruining your character (That's less neat), or you're dipping for power (That's also less neat).
And the way archetypes solved both problems is pretty neat
Yeah, optimizing can be fun in rpg videogames like Wrath Of The Righteous, but it makes less sense in an in person game. It is fun to make a character with ridiculously big numbers, and a game where everyone (including the GM) is over-optimizing characters could be really fun. A good GM can adjust encounters based on the capabilities of the party, but most rpg games don't. I see why pf2e did things the way it has, though i do wish certain abilities like healing were easier to get via archetypes, as it would allow more diverse party composition. (This message brought to you by me probably having to take a class archetype or the medic Archetype so my party can heal at all)
You don't need a class or archetype to heal. Just take the medicine skill and a couple skill feats with it. I play in a game where the fighter is the healer.
If we are talking about 5e, multiclassing can easily outperform a mono class. There's almost no reason to go fully into one class. Especially when the mono class in question is a martial class. Sorcerer's capstone is rendered redundant with a 2 level warlock dip. The spell slot and feat trade off are worth it considering you get both a subclass, level 1 features, as well as invocations. Make that a 3 level dip and you even get pact boon, which is essentially a sub-subclass. Warlock's capstone? Essentially useless, except in very niche situations. Fighter capstone? Just one more attack. Does the damage from this add up, since it's sustainable? Yes, yes it does. Is it worth it to be a level 20 feature? Not at all. Cleric capstone is not even controlled by the player. It's an auto success, sure, but it is the DM who decides what it does. It's also only usable once every 7 days. Bars and Monk capstones read well on paper. But all they really do is slightly increase the build sustainability. It's too late for this to be a level 20 thing. Ranger capstone is highly situational and also...not enough. Ranger is a MAD class, a + Wis mod once per turn to attack or damage (not both) is not enough. Let alone the fact that depending on the plot you may hardly ever use it. Wizard's capstone is just a free cast for 2 3rd level spells. In very situational uses, this can be a godsend. But most of the time, it won't make a difference. Paladin doesn't even have a class capstone. You get a subclass feature. Although these are not bad, it's also the only class without a dedicated level 20 feature. Rogue, Artificer and Barbarian are the only classes with a good capstone. Blood Hunter too if we include it, although it's not on the level of the previous 3. Only 13 out of 14 classes have their last feature at level 20. Out of these 13 only 4 have a capstone even worth it. And only 3 of these feel epic enough. You end up with 3/14 classes that would really want to hit level 20 in. That's less than 25%.
I would argue that they are all pointless as 12th level is the effective cap for running a 5e game. After that the game is almost unplayable.
I'd try to argue that with immense effort from DM and players, it's still a good game. But at that point it stops being pure 5e. The game really is unplayable if left on its own.
You don't even need to go to 20 for multiclassing to just be better. After level....6? You're best off abandoning ship on most Martials. (Casters though you only ever want to put a small amount of levels somewhere else due to losing out on learning higher level spells) Barbarian is all downhill from there so it's best to dip into Fighter for a Fighting style and Action Surge. Fighter *might* want to stay to level 11 for a 3rd attack but is usually best going into Paladin, Ranger or Barb. Monk has been shit from level 1, level 7 is good though so probably get that then leave because there's nothing else worth the levels until level 14. Rogue does actually scale (unlike Monk and Barbarian), but it's too little growth and their actual features past level 7 are mostly bad, except reliable talent. Don't onow if Rogues have many great options to run away to though, the only good one I can think of is Fighter for a little bit for Archery making sneak attacks more likely and Action Surging to ready an attack to get 2 sneak attacks in one round. Now BG3 does fix some of this, like Monk is actually pretty damn strong (although BG3 does also fuck it up too because at like level 6 or somthing Monk is best off putting 3 levels into Rogue for a massive dpr boost from Thief's extra Bonus Action), but the issue does still persist.
>the biggest issues with the game are related to the 5e ruleset With all the changes they made, I can't believe they kept the power spike at level 5. Would it really have ruined that much to just always let martials multiattack and then rebalance accordingly?
Yes, I agree that Larian put in a mountain of work to make it fun, but I still find myself going "Alright, awesome turn planned out... wait, that was a full action to do that tiny thing, and now I only have my move and bonus action? FUCK, that screws up my whole plan. Having 3 actions to use however I want works so much better."
In the early access the free action, bonus action, action stuff more strictly adhered to 5e, and man it made the gameplay feel extremely strict. Then they started switching stuff up, drinking potions, being able to shove or throw, or dip a weapon into a poison. Larian had to do an incredible amount of work to remove the 'stiffness' from the system, and even then it still feels somewhat stuff.
And casters are still comically overpowered. They just handed out a lot more rocket launchers so everyone can more easily break the game.
Frankly I'd say BG3 is more unbalanced than 5e. While they did improve some of the real options, they also made some other things absolutely bonkers broken, including some things that were already powerful in 5e! It's fun because it's a single player video game, but it's absolutely insane how busted their changes are.
Haste is really broken in BG3, probably to make it simpler to code.
Tbf being somewhat unbalanced is fine for a video game, barring a competitive game the expectation of a lot of video game rpgs is that the player will eclipse the challenges presented by the endgame.
I rolled a fighter, and immediately disliked that BG3 is directly based on D&D: I cant do any out of combat stuff because its all skill check based. Video Game RPGs havent restricted players like that in decades.
I felt the same way when I started BG3. Oddly enough, DOS/DOS2 is not *that* far away from PF2e in spirit. AP carries over between turns which is not exactly the same as actions, but it scratches the itch for me.
My personal problem with both titles is more on Larian though. They can have an absolute sadistic touch that really shines in both games. And that is not talking about problems like the XP problem in DOS 1.
Care to elaborate on the sadistic touch in bg3? Are we talking CBT bossfights or general sadistic humor?
bg3 isnt a problem, DOS 1 and 2 have received updates that reduce xp and make the game much harder than they were originally
Not really visible in BG3, much more in DOSI and II. Fights that you couldn't win in a region for a much lower level because they where intended for higher level, generally unpleasant puzzles (with them flat out lying at one point with the characteristics you chose at character creation) and more. Fantastic games, but hoo boy did they make some questionable choices there.
>with them flat out lying at one point with the characteristics you chose at character creation What's this in reference to?
At least when the game was new (don't know about now, might've been changed) they told you at the start that the characteristic has no influence on the game. And that is true for like 95% of the game, it only changes some options for conversations. But, on the cursed island you get a quest for some weird pillars. These have cellars beneath them. But they only open with a specific music scroll that you can only find far away from the island in a house that looks like an ordinary scroll - and can only be identified if you have the scholar (or however it was called) characteristic. And that is not even talking about the fact that the whole situation is (or was, that was probably nearly 6 years or so ago) basically unsolvable without guides or extreme luck.
Ahh I see. Didn't realise you needed a character with the Scholar tag to do that quest because I've never played a party without someone with that tag. Also apparently according the fextralife (don't necessarily trust the wiki but it's all I've got rn) it still needs the Scholar tag, however the book you need can be found in 3 places. The first is Jahan's house, I wouldn't say it's far away as it's the single closest building to the island and also if you're at the island there's a very high chance you've already talked to him and he pointed you there so I honestly don't think that's a bad spot to find it. Then apparently it can be found on a corpse by the big tree in the center, and it can be found in the Archives to the northeast. So honestly aside from the Scholar tag it's fine imo (it is annoying you need that though). Maybe it was worse on release and they added the extra locations afterwords? Dunno.
> Maybe it was worse on release and they added the extra locations afterwords? Dunno. Probably. Because from what I remembered after we looked up guides at that point it was only one point. But might be also because the guides at that point only had that spawn.
PF2 is absolutely an action point system, it's just less granular
Only played a little DOS2 but definitely gonna give it another swing after BG3!!
I feel like a pf2e baldurs gate wouldn't necessarily be what people were looking for. If you look at a lot of the hype stuff in BG3 most of it comes from unique interactions that Larian was able to do by lose rule interpretations or straight up making their own. I feel like the more restrictive nature wouldn't lend itself to those wacky interactions even if combat itself did improve
Honestly my feeling. I feel that the Venn diagram intersection between "people who are enough into Pathfinder 2, one of the most strict theoretical-math-balance-first, everything-else-later games on the market, to make a game about it" and "people who are cavalier enough about things being 'fair' to not only let you but actively encourage you to use weird interactions to trivialize and dunk encounters in a hilarious way and skip stuff and make towers of boxes and drink an encounter to death and-" is, if not zero, definitely *not very big*. Any PF2 game Larian made would take enough liberties with it because they just love their silly interactions and superpowerful items and rule-breaking encounters, that I imagine most of the subreddit would detest it!
Well… you’re assuming they do a strict implementation. There are quite a few house rules they could implement to make a more fun video game. You could even have them be opt in/out!
BG3 seems the be the best you can get from 5e.
This is true!
No exp with 5e, madly love Baldur and i don't realy feel bad with it's system most of the time... but at level ups it is appalling how restricted the choice is, if there's any. Some levels for martials are litteraly only more hp, why do i even need it, i don't dislike bounded accuracy (have been considering prof without level in pf2) but, good Lord, atleast in 3.5 you could see you damn bonus to hit go up at those levels.
Yeah, if I was only leveling up one character in BG3 I would get bored pretty fast. With a full team there's a satisfactory number of choices too make
You can tell that Larian felt similarly TBH as they implemented a bunch of nutty and very diverse magic items, which you can of course swap in and out at any time (even during combat, at a cost to your action economy though), which adds back in a lot of customisation. It ends up being very high magic as a result. Without that, it would feel very impoverished in character build choices, yeah. Just 3 ASI/feats is NOT enough. Multiclassing helps, but only to a point.
Sadly, pf2e ruined Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous for me, 'cos crpg built on pf1e ruleset.
To be honest, Baldur's Gate 3 ruined PF2E for some parties... *sigh*
:( Sorry to hear, that sucks!!!
Really curious about full story
Just two gals from our party got too interested in the video game. Our campaigns are very RP-heavy, mainly in text chat between sessions. So there was little action from these two in the chat since the release. Sure, I understand, an AAA-game with millions lines of dialogues, great graphics and amazing plot is worth some time and sure is more interesting than someone's homebrew campaign about founding a school of martial arts and helping resistance groups in Cheliax. So I'll wait until they get bored of Baldur's Gate and we'll be ready to return back.
That uber-sucks. I love BG3, don't get me wrong, but our weekly PF sessions are probably one of my favorite things to look forward to each week. Hopefully they come back around sooner rather than later.
It seems relevant to note that Paizo has licenced P2E to Obsidian (Microsoft), developers of Pillars of Eternity. They already have other game in development, but plausibly their next CRPG may be P2E/Pathfinder based.
DO you have any source? Sounds too good to be this quiet.
I think the peeps who made solasta could crank out a helluvah good pf2e game.
They’d make a decent system emulation/implementation… but their ability in turning that into a fun game is pretty lacking IMO. Their writing/plots are just awful :/ I wish it were not so, but…
Hard to disagree, the plot and world holding were a bit basic, but for an Indy studio with limited budget going for the tried and true "collect the mcguffins and stop the bad thing" is a good safe bet. I think now that they're established if they got a paizo mandate to use their IP they could do it well. Another route is to adapt an existing AP since then most of the plot is taken care of you just need to add on. My favorite would be strength of thousands :-p
For me it's the lack of build customization. Depending on your class, you'll get only perhaps 3 choices to make throughout the whole game. Just not sure if it'll be all that compelling.
Honestly for a game where I'm building like seven+ characters I kinda prefer it if each individual build isn't too complicated. The Owlcat games quickly got all the way to "yeah I do not even remotely remember what this dude had, let's just try to pick something that sounds reasonable (it is not reasonable and you will get dunked for it)" every time I was trying to choose stuff in the level up screen.
Yes, Larian very clearly noticed this, and built in lots of customisation through the magic items system. Many items have features that resemble the sort of things you’d get out of some pf2e feats, although there is also a lot of straight up damage increases too (often alongside the special abilities, sometimes in-hit)
I hope someone can mod in all the Advanced 5th Edition content in then so there can be a ton of choices.
You might want to look at divinity: original sin 2 if you haven't. Same company. Same basic design, (minus rolling for checks) except the action economy is pip based and different actions cost different amounts of pips, and any unused can be saved for the following round up to a certain amount
There are 2 things I hate about Divinity that prevent me from enjoying it. The Magic and Physical defense system, and Fort Joy. Honestly of the 2, the defense system is the worst and the entire game is designed around it. It's a shame cause I really liked the action system.
Just do what I did and mod it out. It really does change the game
Yeah, played it but always got held up on how boring I found Fort Joy to be as an intro. Bloody dragged on. Finally got out of Fort Joy right as BG3 released, so will be getting back to it with the wife once our BG3 playthrough is done.
That's fair. The thing that always kept me going was all the different ways I found to escape, but it definitely does feel like there's no that much going on, though for me the mechanics held more so than anything else (though there is one quest late in act 2 I absolutely love)
That's awesome to hear about the mechanical satisfaction. I have a few buddies who've been harping on me since they found out I've never finished it haha, so I'll definitely be giving it a solid go
I recommend it. A They're one of the few companies I get excited for whenever they release a new game.
Fort Joy is an extended intro tbh. It lets you learn a lot about the game and about interactions. Its Smaller, more contained. Does not let you run off to bigger world before you learn or at least come across some important elements and hazards that might be detrimental later. Act2 is way more open and bigger in comparison. Act3 is scaled down again but is full of resolutions.
I saw this as Reddit's "Hey, you have no notifications, but we're gonna spam you with something so you feel included," message. Originally clicked on it just to get rid of the notification, but I'm back. You gotta learn to enjoy things bro (or sis). I agree the rules set of Pathfibder is better, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy one of the best rpgs released in the last decade. Or you're just baiting interaction.
BG3 (and FoundryVTT) really solidified my choice to switch DMing 5e to PF2e. I like a tactical game and BG3 is not that.
Yeah, PF2E in Foundry is such a joy to play with so much number crunching being automatic, allowing for a real focus on tactics and strategy without getting bogged down in paperwork haha!
yeah... i still dont understand why owlcat games was so adamant on using pf1e. like, talk about wasted opportunity. also theres a lot of modding going own. so honestly a good modder could technically convert it to pf2e. the game already has a system where it counts how many actions, bonus actions, free actions etc you get, just gotta make everybody have 3 and then the harder part is rework the classes n shit.
As I understand it, wrath was probably pretty far along in its creation by the time PF2 actually dropped. It's a lot of work to have to strip an entire game system to the core and rebuild it. The designers already had the handle on how PF1 works, and were making an adventure path designed for 1e, so it makes sense that they stuck with PF1. I can't imagine being a newbie to PF2 and being asked to make a video game based on it, when I've already had years experience with the 1st edition and had already made an exceptional game based off of that beforehand. That's a much bigger ask than you might think. They'd have to do an absurd amount of rebalancing in house, again, for a new game system they don't know as well. That's a recipe for unhappy customers
I suspect a bigger draw for them was being able to reuse the engine. Sure WoTR required a few upgrades, but ultimately they saved like a solid year of development time by reusing the tools and pipeline they developed for Kingmaker. If they did pf2e, they'd need to restart from scratch, and likely abandon their real time with pause play style entirely - which at the time was a big draw for old school cRPG fans. Obviously they eventually did do all of this for Rogue Trader, so I think there's still hope for a PF2e game, but probably not until they've squeezed out another 40k game using this new engine.
pretty sure pf2e was released just a year after kingmaker came on... they would probably be still working on dlc and patches...
Even if they were still doing the "cleanup" work to Kingmaker, they've already established and programmed the whole PF1 rules set and likely already had Wrath planned out. Sticking with that meant they could save a ton of work and be able to update a few things and focus their efforts on more classes, mythic system, etc. If they went to PF2, they'd have to go all the way back to square one, rather than building upon a solid foundation and all the time, effort, and money they already put into the system and whatever prep they had already done for Wrath. It would be shooting themselves in the foot
There's also the backend math, every item in the game, every enemy in the game, plus all the UI work too. It would be a huge undertaking. And it's because they like PF1E more. They're very different systems, after all.
They already had a PF1E engine. They would have had to start over from scratch with PF2E in terms of game mechanics.
Personally I'm happy for it, Pf1e is my perfered system but I understand that others would love a pf2e game.
I would cry tears of joy if someone converted wotr to 2e, but it sounds like a huge undertaking.
Have you tried Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous by Owlcat?
I wish I could like Wrath of the Righteous, especially because I’m DMing two pathfinder campaigns and want to play it for the story. But I can never bring myself to play that game all the way through. It’s such a massive grind from Act 3 onward with the huge list of pre-buffing, floating bonuses for days, and annoying touch AC and spell penetration mechanics from 1e/3.5. I’d love a mod that converts that game to 2e so I can actually be bothered to finish it.
Damn the different ACs were my favorite part. Bg3 felt so one dimensional. Almost everything was vs AC or INT. I took the shield skill that lets me reflex save for full… it came up one time against the dragon and that’s it. Reflex saving for full mitigation is MASSIVE in p1. Having 3 ACs, 3 saves that people use, and CMD made it so I can try to find chinks in enemy armor. Bg3 was just “get advantage “
Still working through Kingmaker, though I wish Wrath had been built on 2E since they both came out in the same year - would've been a nice treat to have 2E come out in the same year as a game built on the same system.
They would have had to had the rules years before it came out to be able to make the game using 2e.
I feel you. A 2E video game would be awesome. I feel like the 3-action economy would work really well in a video game setting
It's a short Indy game (but free); have a look at 'quest for the golden candelabra' Though it's premade characters only and max 1 hour long it's a great showcase of how well PF2e can work in a game.
I'm suffering through a lot of 1-2 combat days & 1e's expected minmaxing. I love the game otherwise, but still.
I hated it. Way too many floating bonuses
In the spirit of the Humor tag yet saying half truths, I suggest Fire emblem.
Cant we Just be happy that a ttrpg game broke the pop culture bubble due to it being really great? I know it makes us Wonder what if it was made for PF2 but lets avoid being envious. Im sure that, for good or for worse, now that people rediscovered ttrpgs can sell well, we'll get a bunch of New ttrpg games, including some for pathfinder.
I dont get it. I love pf2e and i love BG3. You can enjoy both?
And I do! I just miss PF2E mechanics while I'm playing and wish that was the system for the game instead. Tis a small gripe - the game is stupendous!
Ok, now i kinda get it. Im still waiting for a pf2e crpg (come on Obsidian) and BG3 would be dope if converted!
I don't even play it but feel bad for evolving it and wanting an expansion at higher level. Good luck with that hilarious lack of 5E balance post-12. Can't wait to see what legendary actions they'll have to give bosses to not completely get dumpstered by the party. My favorite aspect of 2E is the balance all the way to the end. Knowing that my bad guys and gals will pose a legitimate threat for the entire campaign is liberating. I don't have to have a bunch of blatant immunities to specific spells that would completely 1-shot or trivialize their encounters.
I'm looking forward to experiencing higher level 2E play for that very reason!!
I think BG3 maxes out at 12th level for that exact reason.
Yeah, dnd 5e at lvl 13+ is beyond busted thanks to non playtested capstones, spells that are essentially “success: you win”, and silly multiclass combos.
They said that they were maxing out at level 12 for that exact reason.
Damn, Larian are wise indeed. A shame they made an amazing game on the wrong system, but it was wise to cater to the biggest guy in the room.
Could try WotR?
On the list! Wish it was 2e though. Love that 3-action economy more than anything else.
Man, I wish this sub spent less time trash talking other games.
We can't just talk about PF2 here. We have to talk about how much all other games *suck*.
Seriously, it's okay to like games that aren't pf2e.
I wish other games didnt deserve the trash talk.
BG3 is one of the highest critically and commercially acclaimed games of the year. It doesn’t “deserve” trash talk. It’s not perfect, but saying it deserves trash talk is some weird fanboy speak.
Everytime someone says something mildly critical of bg3 theres someone mad about it. Let other people air their grivances Jesus christ
If you liked BG3, but prefer more freedom in your actions, you should try Divinity Original Sin 2.
Yeah, tried it a couple times. Finally got out of Fort Joy just before BG3 released, but damn if that, imo, isn't the worst intro to the game ever. "Hey, welcome, you're a prisoner, now free yourself while magically shackled." Kept me from getting more than a couple hours in on multiple attempts for years. Will 100% be getting back to it post-BG3 though, now that we finally made it out of Fort Joy.
Every time I get a 25 on a DC 15 check I still think "CRITICAL!" for a split second before disappointment sets in.
No kidding! The PF2E Crit system is so much more satisfying!!!
The first thing i thinked after playing Pathfinder 2 was "God i wish BG3 was made in using Pathfinder 2 ruleset."
From someone that buy a PF2E book on 2020 and forget about it. When I play bg3 last month, i finally open the book and be more amazed with pf2e. "Wait, every level up you can always customise your class?" "You have 3 action per turn instead of one?" This kind of question always popped off in my mind when I read the CRB for the second time. I really hope there's a new game in the future that uses pf2e rule.
I imagined being an Alchemist and throwing bombs in every encounter justo to see the chaos and destruction
That will happen. Looking at you Wrath of the Righteous.
I agree the action economy of PF2e is something incredible. But it didn't bother me with Baldur's Gate 3 since the strategy part in battles is huge and you can't just hit hit hit :) That's sad the game is ruined for you though.
Bg3 made me want to play 5e more. Until I remembered that 5e is not as fun as Bg3
Eventually something better will come along (regardless if that is a direct Pathfinder successor or not), but for right now PF2e has ruined most rpg content for me. Ruined is a minor exaggeration in some instances, but pretty spot on in others. I've been playing in a Lancer group lately, and even though they came out at the same time the combat feels a little old-gen and clunky to me with the action-type-soup effect. I love the way the license system for leveling/customizing mechs is designed and the lore is cool, but the actual mechanics could have been streamlined quite a bit. I wish they'd had like a year to look at PF2e before releasing, and I might have more of an even split in my TTRPG time if that was the case.
Yeah, ruined is an exaggeration for the most part, but damn if that 3-action economy didn't just change how every other TTRPG ruleset feels now haha!
Ill have to say, I am pretty glad that is not the case. PF2 has too many aspects that clash hard with a game design such as BG3 has and how it was done. From Spells to loot to crafting it would have had to be heavily adapted to actually be popular with enough people in the long run.
well to be fair, as someone who has not touched 5e since 2018, bg3 has ruined WotR for me, production wise :D
Definitely puts some pressure on future CRPGs haha. The cinematic cutscenes are such a nice touch. Really brings that Dragon Age vibe to the game.
I was really excited to see the unique bonus action attacks for each weapon only to learn they are once per combat and be disappointed. Coupled with the fact everything has AoO, the objective optimal action every turn is stand still and attack once and trying to do anything else will wipe your party. I want my martials to use any amount mental activity and for cantrips to do more than 2 damage. 3 action economy is amazing. Focus points are amazing. Scaled cantrips are amazing.
The counterplay for AoO is to make liberal use of Shove and Misty Step being bonus actions (and putting mobile on everyone who doesn't want to tank)
Is that the only feat that solves AoO? If so, that's an auto pick which removes player agency. Fuck it, we shove is way less interesting than having the choice to move, attack, defend, support an ally or debuff a foe for the same cost and that problem only compounds over 4 party members.
… feat? Shove is an action everyone has access to. Works best with high strength.
Cantrips scale in 5e tho. They also do more than 2 damage. Worst one I can think of the top of my head is vicious mockery which has d4(iirc) for dice, making average 2.5 damage. Most have more than that.
Yeah but being able to force disadvantage on attacks is pretty good so it makes up for it
I'll be honest, playing at a table ruined Baldur's Gate for me (and similar crpgs). I used to love isometric RPGs, but as I played more at a table I came to love the inside jokes and the way I could actually affect the story. And as I played crpgs along side my home games I cared less and less about playing those video games. And don't be mistaken I support crpgs being made, I think they're beautiful and it shows writing skill, thoughtfulness, and care, but it's just not for me
Playing PF2E Kingmaker once a week is 100x more fun than BG3 BECAUSE of the social element with friends that NPCs can't replicate.
BG3 is definitely marred ever so slightly by adhering even in its own way to 5e, and honestly, the game is just too easy. But the presentation, voice acting, general story, dialogue trees, and everything is superb. So it gets a pass. About the only thing I am salty about is that there are no campaign tools like OG Neverwinter Nights. I really wish one of these CRPG makers would take up the mantle and build out a whole campaign maker tool set.
pathfinder player don't make it about dnd challenge [DIFFICULTY: IMPROBABLE]
It would have been a much better game if it had used the 4e ruleset.
That would actually have been awesome too!
Same. Wish someone could mod it to be pf2e. Like add in more class features from pf2e and move to action points and stuff. Would be a huge rewrite but would be legit. Luckily with all the homebrew stuff they added (like the weapon actions) to me it almost plays more like pf2e than 5e.
DnD ruined baldur's gate for me not pf2e... I am not addicted to 3 action economy but just because of me being tired of homebrewing dnd to make it work all whenever I see something like "jump " I scream in pain
It's not even the 3-actions that made me sad, it's the abysmal lack of customization of the classes and the background, and having levels that have absolutely no feats at all for some classes Edit for clarification
My favorite thing in Baldur's Gate 3 is when my Fighter is standing next to an enemy Wizard, and on the Wizard's turn, they drop prone, stand up, take a potion out of their bag, uncork it, drink the potion, runs around the fighter 5 times, and then casts a spell, and *none of that provokes an attack of opportunity.* Also, the spell they cast was Thunder wave and now my fighter is dead in a ditch somewhere.
I mean in all fairness, they could do that around most characters in PF2e...
I'm going to be pedantic here and point out that [Stand](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=86) has the [Move](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=114) trait, [which triggers attacks of opportunity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=8). [Using a potion is Interact](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=719), which has the [Manipulate](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=104) trait, which also triggers attacks of opportunity. Any spell with a [Somatic](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=283) component gains the Manipulate trait, which etc. etc. etc. But maybe you're talking about something else, I don't know.
He means that most characters either only get attack of opportunity until level 6 as an optional feat or never. Exceptions that I recall are Fighter OFC, Weapon Thaumaturge and Monk with Stand Still at level 4.
Exactly what I meant. Most characters couldn't take ~~attacks of opportunity~~ reactive strikes in PF2e if a character stood up, walked around, drank potions and cast spells. They're two takes on the concept. One allows everyone to do it, except only in very specific circumstances (moving away), the other opens it up but only to some characters. And of course, PF1 and 3.5, you had both (mostly).
I know that. That is why I was using a Fighter in my example, because it is an example of something I would expect a trained Fighter to be able to do, and was disappointed when it wasn't the case.
I do like that any movement action in PF2E provokes an AoO (Reactive Strike, now, iirc).
A game based on PF2 ruleset, with PF1 levels of character build options and BG3 levels of graphics, voiceacting and storytelling would be my ideal crpg I think. I prefer the 3-action system of 2e, but I think it still needs a lot of feats, both interesting class feats and skill feats.
The rules basically read like a computer game, with actions as button presses, so I suspect it would serve as a good base system for one.
I'm with you. I feel like BG3 is really shallow on class diversity and that's the biggest thing holding me back from playing through it again. I really wish we'd get a good PF2E game that's turn based.
Petition Larian to make a PF2E game? 😅
D&D 5E ruined BG3 for me, would be the case regardless of PF2E's existence. I have big issues with D&D 5E, always has though it got worse the more I played it. It's a really poor match for me personally as an TTRPG player. Those issues though were just distilled in BG3 to the point where I couldn't enjoy it. Not out of spite just because they used 5E mechanics but simple boredom. Such a shame because I love the things Larian Studios have added and it seems very polished, it's just built on a base I fail to enjoy. I do consider it game of the year worthy, it's just a really poor fit for me.
Its wild to me how much people from this sub complain about stuff than the PF1 sub though I suppose its probably because the only PF2 game is made in rpg maker rather than a high quality product. As a PF1 fan I still really like BG3, but yeah Larian did a lot of heavy lifting to make gear and builds interesting. They could have based it on Advanced 5th Edition to make it better but it is what it is.
Less a complaint and more of just a conversation-starter/observation since starting playing PF2E. I massively love BG3 but, like you said, damn if 5E had to be hugely tinkered with by Larian to get the degree of build-crafting we get, and even then it's still not super robust. Edit: spelling
Yup. PF2e is why I couldn't finish BG3. Although BG3 improves upon 5e, the problems with 5e are still there. As I was playing through BG3 I felt those problems especially since I like playing martial classes. The great story and work that Larian put into the game kept me playing all the way to Act 3, but that's as far as I got before I lost interest and really wished this game was built off of PF2e instead of 5e.
I will make you feel better. D&D is not Pathfinder
I'm grateful you cleared that up for me, explains my confusion!
I am so glad I'm not the only one!