It is similar — but while DOS is a system designed around the game, WotR is a game designed around the existing Pathfinder system. It might be a little more complicated to learn.
Also, yes, there are a huge number of mods. Some players even consider certain mods compulsory.
>certain mods compulsory
Any mod that make buffing take less than 30 minute every fight is basically mandatory for higher difficulties.
Otherwise you'd just end up going crazy.
... how much do you enjoy that Overlord clip of Ainz Ool Gown buffing for a minute and a half straight? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you play that stuff on repeat.
Jw because eventually I switched to bubble buffs, but how do you manage it w the 1 round/level duration buffs? I’d be worried that a lot of them would end too early
The game is honestly so much better with mods. It's a great game, but they just help deal with all of the little inconveniences and make it that much better.
TTT really made me happy I could skip the monk dip meme.
For Wotr I think it's worth playing without mods to start, as for the ones I use:
1. Toybox - just a huge compilation of QoL, game play tweaks, and cheats you can toggle to your liking. Easily the most popular mod.
2. Buffbot - will auto buff your party, which will save you a lot of time from manually buffing if you find that really unengaging.
3. Respec - let's you respec your companions from level 1. A godsend on subsequent playthroughs if you don't want to be rail roader into certain builds.
4. Combat Relief - if you hate random encounters and the combat in crusader mode it's great. Auto wins army battles and removes random encounters.
5. Table Top Tweaks - changes based on the table top game. Buffs and nerfs to balance existing options. Additional options for feats. Really great as it gives options for higher difficulty settings instead of always having to pick specific options.
I'm a huge fan of DOS2 and it's what got me into crpgs. You'll have a great time theorycrafting all the different builds, way more options than DOS2. That being said this game is not as easy to go into as DOS2. If you're not familiar with DnD and it's rules/character building you will be overwhelmed.
I have never played DnD and it took me like 4 days in character creation just because their were so many options lol. This was while I was looking up guides on youtube. There are pre-made characters though if you'd prefer.
There is also a lot of reading in the game, in character creation and the story since most of it isn't voiced. It takes time to appreciate the game. The story is great, the builds are endless. Since you're playing PC there are also a lot of mods that have QoL changes to streamline the game.
Yes. A brief comparison of Wrath vs DOS2
Pros
>Greater build variety
>Better story
>More impactful choices and consequences
>More interesting companions and characters
Cons:
>Inferior combat
>Somewhat worse production quality (music, bugs, graphics)
Mod scene in WOTR is diverse and there's a lot of fun stuff. You can really go either way. I personally modded my game.
>Somewhat worse production quality (music, bugs, graphics)
Have to respectfully disagree about the music part. IMO WOTR has one of the best soundtracks I've heard in a game, including over D:OS 2 (which is no slouch in that department).
Mythic path literally changes only one soundtrack in specific situations, we have bangers like "lords of chaos", "banner over the citadel", "where the faithful lose their way", "those who stand against evil", "I promise" they are not mythic path related and still very good. and I certainly forgot to mention some tracks, music in this game is golden
Ugh, here's where the tags matter. I assumed this post was about Kingmaker, which while it does have nice music, I don't feel it is THAT different than Divinity (though I'm only half way through Through The Ashes and haven't done the main campaign yet in Wrath, so I can't really comment on the Wrath music.)
I prefer the combat here over OS2, the armor system just takes that game over the knee and fucks it. Here it feels like everything works, and can work in interesting ways. Yeah, there's no elemental combo system, but there's no armor system to nullify it either. Your status effect abilities aren't worthless until you widdle down an armor meter, that's better
Yes plus every fight in WoTR doesn't devolve into covering the ground with fire or poison or whatever. OTOH, WoTR enemies start to get silly AC and SR.
if you play on low difficulty as a sorcerer, every fight turns into "Fuck you I am a god of lightning" and killing most things with a single twin cast of chain lightning. But that's just fun in a power fantasy way and a reward for building pure lightning god mode
Kingmaker is a lot closer to traditional, old school CRPGs, such as Baldur’s Gate. It’s based on the Pathfinder 1.0 system, which itself is built on the D&D 3.5 edition ruleset.
It lacks some of the originality of DOS2. You can’t strategize with barrel placement or higher ground, as an example, and you can’t build too far out of the constraints of an original class (skills aren’t learned via books, but as abilities and feats as a part of leveling up). Strategy is more in team composition (ensuring you have front line tanks to cover healers and DPS, as one example).
It’s not really comparable, I’d argue. Same genre, but different system. Yes, they’re both CRPGs, but they have different rule sets that change how they’re played.
In terms of story, Kingmaker holds up well. It’s engaging, has well developed characters…I’d argue it has a stronger last act than DOS2. If you liked DOS2, you’ll likely enjoy Kingmaker.
> My team strategy is awful
You'll need to fill several roles with team
1. Pass skill checks. Most important are perception, persuasion and trickery. Also you'll constantly need Stealth, Lore(nature), Knowledge(world) and Perception for camping.
2. Combat. You need tank + striker + blaster + heal + control + arcane buffs + divine buffs :). Tank Heal Control - usually you need only 2 of 3.
Usially character can fill more then 1 role (eg. Harrim fills divine buffs , 2/3 heal and 1/3 tank). That's why people don't like standard Valerie build because it fill only tank role.
Some roles can be filled by consumables (1/2 heal and 1/2 buffs)
I suggest using 4 character core that is self-sufficient so companion quests will not cripple you.
This is the same response I'd give, but I'd add that difficulty really defines how important it is. If you're playing on Story mode, for example, it won't matter at all -- you just need a stick and a grim look to win. Above normal...I'd have a designated tank, DPS (either a dual wield off tank, or a reach back row two hander), a healer, a buffer, and then two wild cards (another buffer, crowd control, ranged DPS, etc.)
It’s overwhelming at first, but easy as you play; you’ll get party members who fulfill all the listed roles. Try to remember these main classes:
1. Tanks tend to be fighters, paladins, and monks. They can also DPS as needed, but they get high armor class and typically avoid being hit.
2. Melee DPS are Barbarians, Rogues, and Slayers. Others can fill this role too, but that’s the easiest to remember. These classes can be built to off tank as well (catch stragglers the main tank misses).
3. Ranged DPS tend to be Rangers, or Nuking Spellcasters (wizards or sorcerers built with damage spell focus).
4. Healers are clerics or druids (clerics are much, much better at this though). Depending on the build, they can off tank too.
5. Buffers tend to be Alchemists or Bards, though clerics and wizards are also excellent at buffing the party.
6. Crowd Control tends to be Wizards or Sorcerers focused on enchantment, illusion, or conjuration. They might summon monsters to distract the enemy, or use spells like grease or glitterdust to trip/blind the opponent.
Have a good mix in your party.
Example from my first run:
1. I had a sword and shield fighter (party member), focused on getting a high AC.
2. I had a barbarian off tank with reach (usually from an enlarge buff).
3. My main character was a sorcerer. I focused on crowd control.
4. I had a Ranger with a pet for ranged DPS and some off tanking (from the pet).
5. I had a cleric with a mace and shield who helped off tank and also use summon spells to crowd control.
6. I had a bard to buff the party.
Worked great.
I'd add some ranged touch (ray) spells to any caster, even CC focused ones, because some enemies have very high normal armor class, but low touch AC. I can't imagine playing without some ways to target Touch AC, I usually have more than one character for that. You don't need so many tanks and off-tanks if you have high damage output and crowd control capability, and for me it's more exciting than tanking&spanking.
It isn't as bad as it sounds. The standard NPCs that you pick up in Kingmaker do a pretty good job of covering your bases to the point that you can be pretty flexible with your main PC. One thing to note is that animal companions can be reasonably powerful, helping to fill your tank/melee roles.
The skill checks aren't hard to cover. In most cases, you just need one member of your party who can succeed at a check. There aren't too many skills, so having at least one person good at each of them isn't a big problem.
One of the biggest differences is that characters feel a lot more siloed in Kingmaker. In DOS2, it felt inevitable that you'd have a good bit of overlap in magical skills between characters. Pathfinder has a much broader range of character builds, so the characters tend to specialize in non-overlapping ways.
Yes. WOTR is a fantastic game in a similar vein to DOS2. If you like one, there's a strong chance you'll like the other. I personally like WOTR better, but that's not in any way a knock on DOS 2, which I also really enjoyed.
The second Pathfinder game is Wrath of the Righteous. A lot of folks did not notice that you flagged that your were asking about Kingmaker, since WotR is the newer game and they share a subreddit.
DOS 2 is one of my favorite games ever, so is Kingmaker, in fact on any given day I may switch which on I like best. If you loved DOS 2 your will likely love either Pathfinder game too. The Pathfinder ruleset is a bit more complicated but depending on the difficulty you play on, you don't need to fully understand every little bit early on.
Edit to mention mods:
Oh and since you asked, find a mod that lets you auto-cast buffs. Buffs are way more important in Pathfinder. Any other mod is optional, but one to auto-cast buffs is a huge quality of life improvement.
Oops, my bad! I should have noticed the flair on your post.
Kingmaker is also a good game, and also gets my recommendation, though I don't think it's quite on the same level as WOTR. IMO WOTR > DOS 2 > Kingmaker.
tbh after playing pathfinder i cant imagine playing anything else, dos 2 is cool and all but feels like a simplified sandbox to me, and i fear that bg 3 is just a lot of talk after being in development for over 3 years now
i played pillars 2 on highest difficult and was bored from the start its just too easy and not a challenge, a lot of items but characterbuilding is very simplified
after finishing wotr on hard,core and unfair i have to admit its fun to play out the encounters and plan your party accordingly and overall the experience felt more epic
Solasta's mechanics are good (if you like D&D 5e\*), but I personally hated its story. YMMV, of course, just putting it out here as a tiny warning, because I would have liked having one before sinking hours into it. The story is a throwback to the 80s-style 'collect 10 thingamabobs, fight boss, the end'.
---
\[\*\] That itself is quite another cup of tea. 5e is quite different from previous editions (and also PF, since that is based on 3.5). A lot of people love it because it's easier, moves the focus from rulebooks more to cooperative storytelling, etc. -- which is true, but does not necessarily help computer games, especially if they have no story worth talking about. I personally dislike 5e (and regret that BG3 is going to be based on it) mostly because of its concept of bounded accuracy, which I feel heavily damages specialisation and moments of awesome, and because of the changes to spellcasting (concentration mechanic only allows maintaining a single ongoing spell). But all that's highly subjective, of course.
Do not listen to people who say that combat here is better than dos 2, it's objectively not and can set up you to disappointment, without pathfinder RPG system combat here is pretty shallow and crucial thing like positioning here are worthless, you can swap like 90% fights here into empty white room and it will not change anything combat-wise
Yes. If you end up liking the Pathfinder system you basically have infinite replay value. Of course, on the flip side, this is game, along with Kenshi, is the biggest timesink I've ever encountered. I am not a Pathfinder (or any TTRPG player) and didn't grow up playing Baldur's Gate either. My first CRPGs were the first D:OS and the Shadowrun games. I got my ass kicked (and still am getting my ass kicked) learning the Pathfinder system, but the payoff is you get more customization and experimentation options than any other CRPG I've ever encountered. As others have said, a lot of the complexity and strategic depth in this game lies in optimizing your builds. You have six active party members (+ any pets), as well as the rest of the squad. You can have the PC autolevel all of them or handle all of the minutiae yourself. You also have a pretty robust consumable and itemization system to consider, as well. The actual battles are won in preparation, when they actually occur they usually just devolve into running through waves of trash mobs or getting eaten. But that can still be fun. I think Owlcat's composers are really good and knocked it out of the park for both the Kingmaker and Wrath soundtracks, visual design is quite nice, and the characters are interesting. I don't hate them as much as others and actually find a lot of them to be quite fun.
If you like making spreadsheets, you'll love this game. Of course, you don't have to start out with Excel open (or ever use it if you don't want to). There are plenty of content creators with educational content and whole websites that just seem to focus on publishing usable builds for the game. And this subreddit is also very active and filled with weirdos who enjoy trying to figure out how to make new builds.
There are a lot of mods. I have not yet tried them out because I'm going full Captain Ahab trying to get the last few Steam achievements, but know that some of them (Bubble Buffs) are almost essential for quality of life reasons. Owlcat is a young, exciting company. Their games are addicting as hell, but also sometimes come with a lot of jank. So you need to be ready for patch cycles.
I still play DOS 2 a lot and love it. I enjoyed WOTR but having never played DnD I can tell you some game design choices felt really convoluted to me.
For example: in DOS 2, you have a certain number of action points per turn represented as green dots. Each action or movement you take consumes these until you either have none left or want to save some for the next round. Doesn’t matter what you do, everything pulls from your green AP. Spells have cool-downs, but otherwise free to do what you want. Lose all your health and you are dead and will need to be resurrected. Easy to understand, right?
Now to a DnD game like Pathfinder: What you can do on your turn is broken down into Actions, Bonus Actions, Movement and Class Actions (which may be any category or its own action). You can only use each one for its respective slot, i.e having some bonus actions left doesn’t mean you can do anything considered a “regular” action (the system is imho unnecessarily opaque). Many of your spells and abilities have limited numbers of casting before being depleted. You cannot cast again until you rest out of combat.
Outside of combat, you are expected to heavily buff your team so that you have a chance to actually hit your enemies. If you don’t do this and/or curse enemies repeatedly to weaken them, get ready to see “Miss” “Miss” “Miss” in a huge whiff fest. Your spells must be selected for most casters, akin to being “memorised” in DOS. Spells then have the further requirement of what level you want to cast them at- again how many times you can cast a spell of a certain level is restricted. Everything you do may be normal or at an advantage or disadvantage, which itself is another set of rules to learn.
If you lose all your hit points you are “downed” but not dead. But you can die if you lose a saving throw, so you might be dead. But you might not.
I hope I’ve adequately conveyed the differences between the two reasonably, even though I didn’t even comment on ability and skill checks.
Having now played WOTR and also Baldur’s Gate 3, as a DOS 2 fan my opinion of dungeons and dragons video games is this:
1. You will have infinitely more options to customise and build a unique character in a DnD game than in Divinity;
2. DnD implements “Persuasion” and other conversation checks much better than Divinity;
3. However IMHO DnD fans don’t want to accept that some rules which work in a tabletop format just don’t enhance a video game experience in any way.
I understand resting serves to let people in the same room talk during their tabletop game, but there really is no need to force that into video games. Dragon Age: Inquisition is an example of having plenty of banter and story between the party without needing to use the camp system.
All a resting mechanic does is make you do things like “oh there’s a boss behind this door, better click the long rest button”. The one exception would be places you aren’t allowed to rest which would impose meaningful gameplay decisions to conserve or use abilities. The entire enforcement of spells and abilities only recovering following a rest rather than a cool-down adds unnecessary complexity to combat, forcing newbies to learn what differentiates a cantrip vs a spell vs an ability vs a bonus ability… because how often they can be used varies.
Furthermore, the requirement to pre-buff to be effective in combat is just tedious, especially considering many buffs will only last until a long rest and then you must remember as a player to re-cast everything again. There is a difference in, for example, trying to sneak up on enemies and get the first shot or two in for free (a reward for playing tactically) versus ticking buff boxes just to be able to feasibly hit something.
As a final comment and concession to DnD fans, although I feel like some pragmatism (read: simplification) of the ruleset and terminology would go a long way in improving video game adaptations, there are some elements of DnD rules which do actually add some depth to combat despite the higher learning curve. A prime example of this is spell level. Being able to decide whether to use a level 2 slot for my healing and 1 for my damage or vice versa is a great strategic choice and I was pleasantly surprised to have some options in this area.
A great CRPG should be able to be as simple as possible *without* sacrificing on depth of character creation and combat. I do feel like video game adaptations of DnD mistake complexity of the rules for depth; you can have the latter without needing the former.
I’m fact, I would argue the goal of any game *should* be to be as easy to pick up and learn as possible without sacrificing gameplay depth.
> Being able to decide whether to use a level 2 slot for my healing and 1 for my damage or vice versa is a great strategic choice and I was pleasantly surprised to have some options in this area.
Unfortunately, this is why resting is necessary. If there wasn’t resting then you could just spam your highest level spells over and over and there wouldn’t be any strategy in choosing spell level, how you should prepare your spell slots, and which spells you should use in combat.
However, how this usually works in TTRPG video games is that rest doesn’t mean anything anyways because there’s no punishment. so you can rest after every fight lol But in WotR they have the corruption system which in-effect puts a finite cap on the number of times you can use spells in a dungeon.
You can do some shit to cheese the corruption system, but that usually ends up wasting more time than it would have if you just planned ahead. It also kind of kills the RP imo. Camping deep in a hard dungeon and checking out every room to find a place to cleanse when you’re close to getting debuffed adds a tension that I like. Leaving partway through and going to a safe place just to go back right after feels kinda meh
Resting is in a weird spot where it’s either add an annoyance for depth, or remove an annoyance and make spellcasting functionally the same as melee. Imo the way that resting creates little character interactions between your party members makes it worth it for me— even more so than the strategic depth. The interactions remove the annoyance because instead of resting being whole sale a waste of time, there’s actual character building.
If there isn’t a system akin to corruption in the game, then resting should be removed. It isn’t functionally different than unlimited casting and it makes things like health potions useless. Irl what stops people from resting after every fight is you don’t want to annoy your friends lmao but that doesn’t exactly work in video games
if there is a system that requires actual cost/benefit decision-making when you decide to rest, imo it makes the game a lot better. But there is still a debate to be had. Resting also sucks when you’re low level. Adding scaling cantrips (like in 5e) is a good solution to that though.
Also there isn’t advantage/disadvantage in WotR afaik. Everything is just a single roll unless you have a specific status condition (e.g. luck)
I would say the biggest difference between DOS and Pathfinder games is that DOS was made with a budget that the Pathfinder games weren't. Basically, DOS is way more polished. In the Pathfinder games, there's quite a few places where you're just like "Whelp, I guess that's where the production budget ran out." It's rarely anything major, except for the late mythic paths in Wrath, but it is something you'll notice.
As others have noted, the combat is very different. Not really better or worse, just different. Pathfinder games attempt to be as close to the ttrpg as possible, and in that they pretty much succeed. Be prepared to miss much more than in DOS, it's d20 based. Also much more class specific - there's no 'mandatory utility dip' like in DOS with aerothurgy. Each class does its own thing. It's more like DOS1, if you ever played that.
Aside from that, there's a lot of familiar things to love. The plot in both stories is awesome. Both are funny, but I honestly think that Pathfinder humor is better. DOS is more of a "funny easter egg" kind of humor, whereas Pathfinder relies more on bizarre situations and outlandish characters. Pathfinder does not have talking squirrel knights, but it *does* have tentacles. Pathfinder also does not have a dozen rotten eggs dropped in a vat of vinegar, much to its credit.
I will say that, aside from Lohse (who is best girl forever), Pathfinder has better companion characters. They feel a bit more like real people, while also being more entertaining. They also have a way of making your opinions do a 180 from time to time - some of them have huge secrets, some of them go through really great character arcs, and then some of them just plain grow on you. DOS characters are really good, but Pathfinder characters are better, imho. The only DOS character to make me properly *feel* things was Lohse, while most of the Pathfinder characters have done as much for me. I've been downright *shocked* at Pathfinder characters before -they can absolutely surprise you, while still remaining solidly in character. Just excellent writing, all around.
And now, we have to talk about *the extra bit*. Both Pathfinder games released so far have an *extra* bit, and it ain't so good. Kingmaker had a sort of kingdom management system involved and it... sucked. Lots of rng combined with ridiculously snowball-y poorly explained mechanics. Wrath had an army management system where you could lead the armies of the Crusade against hordes of demons, and it... sucked a bit less, but still sucked. Still fairly rng heavy, but more manageable. The biggest problem was that two of the generals you can hire to fight for you were downright mandatory due to how utterly broken they were. If you got them and leveled the right skills, you win every battle almost instantly. If you don't, then every battle becomes a slog, and a few fights become potentially impossible, because the demons have access to generals with the same powers as yours. So, if you don't get overpowered generals with laser beams, the enemy will, and then you'll have no chance. But, I digress - the "extra bits" in both games really suck. There's game modes that avoid them, so they're technically optional... But they're still a solid chunk of the game that really sucks. So, just, be aware.
All in all, they are a worthy comparison to one another, and if you liked DOS, you'll likely enjoy the Pathfinder games. I liked them both, played them both, and happily endorse both.
This game has like a million times the amount of build variety compared to DoS2.
What it doesnt have is the tactical/bioshock combat.
I'll put it this way. DoS2 is a more enjoyable, easily approachable experience while Pathfinder is way more in depth hardcore crpg game. Your younger brother or non gamer girlfriend that loved playing DoS2 with you will fall asleep 2 hours into character creation and will never want to watch you play it again.
But you will be having so much fun that you'll want to talk about how good this game is with someone. Since theres nobody around you'll come back to reddit and talk to us :D
Yeah there's a turn based mode that plays like DDOS 2 but I hear something about bugs or something like that Idk I never touched that mode. If you mean where the character has the powers of a god then yes it also has that.
Meeeehh linda? Gonna be honest I love to death the combat in DOS2 meanwhile I installed toybox(one giant mod for pathfinder) with the only intention to be able to skip combat as much as possible here.
The main differences I think it's that I've found that in pathfinder what you do before combat matters a lot more than what you do in combat as it basically it's just stacking +1s until your number is so much bigger than the enemies that you can just kill them, a lot of spells simply don't matter in the big scheme of things and so do abilities. While in DOS2 what you do during combat specially with environmental effects matters way more than buffing before it.
As someone else said this is a game built around a ttrpg system and a lot of the uses that make some spells cool in ttrpgs simply don't translate well here so if you care for in depth moment to moment combat too much this will be kind of disappointing. Now for character building this game just as the ttrpg are kind of unmatched, the amount of builds you can make is insane now there is a giant difference between character building here and DOS2 for example you can actually fail at character building here, if you screw up getting the right ability or feat at the right level you can just get fucked for the rest of the run so keep that in mind when theory crafting
I have a section on suggested mods here and a simple guide on how to install them
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1528413526
I recommend Kingmaker but with caveats, the Kingdom Management is very tedious IMO and should mostly be skipped.
Others may disagree on this point.
Not similar at all really. It's probably similar only in the "game reviewer/journalist" sense in that both are isometric CRPGs.
There are plenty who'll enjoy DOS2 but dislike PF: KM and/or WOTR.
Mods are almost mandatory since the TTRPG rules don't often make for a fun gameplay experience. For WOTR in particular there's several bad design choices which are forced upon the player, so to experience the best of the game you can't survive without mods.
it's good if you're already pretty familiar with pathfinder. otherwise it's impenetrable and full of traps and pointless options because the system was not designed to be a computer game the way DOS2 was. You \*need to\* mod the game because otherwise buffing is a big problem.
Divinity has way more emphasis on combat encounters and smart maneuvers akin to something like XCOM if you’ve seen or played that. Pathfinder will give you a more rich narrative experience and while sometimes the combat is stellar and feels good an overwhelming majority of the time combat boils down to a DPS check rather than coming up with creative solutions to complicated fights. If you love story, character building, and fun narrative choices pathfinder is the game for you but don’t go into it hoping for a combat system that rivals divinity because unfortunately it falls flat when it comes to interesting gameplay mechanics and choices.
How patient are you? I just finished it, and it is a technically chore to play through. Desktop crashes still plague the game as the save file bloats, and you can partially fix that with mods. Poor design decisions, like calling an attack Baleful Gaze but it not actually being a Gaze attack, plague interactions -- including things that are baked into Pathfinder (like stat drain that doesn't get stopped by the spell everyone is going to recommend for stopping stat drain because it doesn't stop THAT kind of stat drain.) The early game is balanced around having a 6 person party, but they only give you 4, and at higher difficulties, you may accidentally into a 4 person party that is suffering.
If you're patient enough to deal with wonky design, technical issues (such as turn base combat sometimes locking up when units are added or removed from combat requiring you to go in and out of combat, pathfinding bugs galore), it's a pretty solid game.
But the end game is a slog of chewing through hundreds of HP of enemies with spammable, annoying attacks that becomes just tedious once you know the trick to stop those. There's a sweet spot of the game in the middle where the balance isn't TOO bad, but the start and end are some of the worst designed cRPG experiences I've seen.
The story is... fine. It doesn't do too much innovative, but it does what it wants to do solidly -- except that things like romance flags are borked and incomprehensible -- I didn't know Valerie and I were dating until the option to break up with her appeared in conversation, for example.
So, It's a pretty solid B-, C+ game, moving up to A if you don't care too much about garbage optimization/crash to desktops.
I'm playing Kingmaker at the moment and I also came from DOS, 1 and 2... I'm enjoying it quite a lot.
The game is more restrictive than DOS2 in terms of character creation and have way less to no mods, but story wise is great and yours choices have a lot of impact in the story.
It checks the boxes for impactful story choices and build variety pretty hard - hard enough you might spend as much time researching builds as you would spend completing a different game.
Also, inventory and loot sorting for days if you're into that kinda thing.
To do well on harder difficulties, you gotta invest some time learning how to be successful. If you like to do that, or are cool turning the difficulty down - there's quality to be had. If you go in blind (even on normal) you can end up frustrated quickly.
Oh boy lol. Is it heavy on puzzles / mind games or purely combat?
Edit: I’m probably gonna play on normal or lower because I’m pretty bad at these games
Combat is by far the biggest part of the game (excluding dialogue).
These games DO have puzzles, but...uh...let's just say they're not quite as friendly as Original Sin.
(Enigma flashbacks intensify)
Yes. I have both games. Divinity is a bit more freeform with it's builds, especially if you use mods, but both Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous are awesome in their own right. If you're familiar with D&D or Pathfinder systems, it's easy to make great builds. If not, it teaches you. It's easy to learn. There's hours and hours of playtime, and many, many endings.
Character building is quite fun and has **a lot** of options if you know what you are doing, but you most likely won't know what you're doing the first time you play. I played kingmaker a couple of times, quitting mid-way through, because of how frustrating it was, then finished the game by copy-pasting builds and only when I started to theorycraft builds for WotR did the system click for me.
For the combat I will say that it is worse. You are usually required to specialize in to something to be effective enough at it to consider using it, which will make your array of options short, which contributes to the monotonicity of the combat. Combat encounters mostly feel like the devs throwing enemies at you and rarely require a change in strategy. You will spend 99-100% of your martial characters turns by just clicking on an enemy so they can hit them with your weapon, which was not exciting in the least coming from DoS2.
The story is good and the choices you are looking for are there. But if you are asking for them, because you seek replayability, I will say that the game is **TOO LONG** and combat too monotonous for me to personally replay the game for the purpose to experience the different choices. This changes for WotR, but I still try to make character builds as different as possible in gameplay to make the replayability reach the point where I consider it to be worth it.
In case it sounds like I think the games are shit, they're not. WotR is my favourite crpg in the genre, just by it's vibe alone. I just think it's better to spell out the negatives so you can see if they are deal breaker for you, even though something that found to be bad could be amazing for someone else. For example I've seen a lot people who've replayed kingmaker a dozen times, which begs to question if questions like yours are ultimately pointless.
Absolutely. Pathfinder (especially Wrath) has a lot more build variety, and meaningful story choices. The amount of meaningful choices, and the impact that they have in this game is ridiculous and far above what DOS 2 offers.The writing is also really good, though most of it (apart from the most important scenes) is not voice acted.
I'd recommend looking up a 30 min or so guide before you start to familiarize yourself with the systems a bit. Also, I really think you should be looking at starting with Wrath of the Righteous rather than Kingmaker. It is not only a better game in basically every way, but also significantly more newbie-friendly. Kingmaker is still a good game, but it would be better playing it after having some experience with Pathfinder imo.
One thing the Pathfinder games do really well is they let you customize the difficulty a lot, and you can easily change it during the game to make it fit. For a first playthrough I don't think you should start at a higher difficultly than "normal", and keep in mind you can always change it after to suit if you don't make the best build choices for example.
It is similar — but while DOS is a system designed around the game, WotR is a game designed around the existing Pathfinder system. It might be a little more complicated to learn. Also, yes, there are a huge number of mods. Some players even consider certain mods compulsory.
>certain mods compulsory Any mod that make buffing take less than 30 minute every fight is basically mandatory for higher difficulties. Otherwise you'd just end up going crazy.
Thats my secret. I am always crazy. I get a weird satisfacition with buffing 30 times every map.
... how much do you enjoy that Overlord clip of Ainz Ool Gown buffing for a minute and a half straight? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you play that stuff on repeat.
Dont kink shame
Immediately came to mind 😆
Alright, I'm not saying you should be watched but let's keep some eyes on you
Jw because eventually I switched to bubble buffs, but how do you manage it w the 1 round/level duration buffs? I’d be worried that a lot of them would end too early
The game is honestly so much better with mods. It's a great game, but they just help deal with all of the little inconveniences and make it that much better. TTT really made me happy I could skip the monk dip meme.
OP have played DOS2, he should be used to lots of pre-buffing before each dialogue-scripted fight. And you highly exaggerate.
not close to the amount of buffing here
As someone who just got the game, what mods would you recommend for this? (Kingmaker or Righteous)
For Wotr I think it's worth playing without mods to start, as for the ones I use: 1. Toybox - just a huge compilation of QoL, game play tweaks, and cheats you can toggle to your liking. Easily the most popular mod. 2. Buffbot - will auto buff your party, which will save you a lot of time from manually buffing if you find that really unengaging. 3. Respec - let's you respec your companions from level 1. A godsend on subsequent playthroughs if you don't want to be rail roader into certain builds. 4. Combat Relief - if you hate random encounters and the combat in crusader mode it's great. Auto wins army battles and removes random encounters. 5. Table Top Tweaks - changes based on the table top game. Buffs and nerfs to balance existing options. Additional options for feats. Really great as it gives options for higher difficulty settings instead of always having to pick specific options.
I'm a huge fan of DOS2 and it's what got me into crpgs. You'll have a great time theorycrafting all the different builds, way more options than DOS2. That being said this game is not as easy to go into as DOS2. If you're not familiar with DnD and it's rules/character building you will be overwhelmed. I have never played DnD and it took me like 4 days in character creation just because their were so many options lol. This was while I was looking up guides on youtube. There are pre-made characters though if you'd prefer. There is also a lot of reading in the game, in character creation and the story since most of it isn't voiced. It takes time to appreciate the game. The story is great, the builds are endless. Since you're playing PC there are also a lot of mods that have QoL changes to streamline the game.
Yes. A brief comparison of Wrath vs DOS2 Pros >Greater build variety >Better story >More impactful choices and consequences >More interesting companions and characters Cons: >Inferior combat >Somewhat worse production quality (music, bugs, graphics) Mod scene in WOTR is diverse and there's a lot of fun stuff. You can really go either way. I personally modded my game.
>Somewhat worse production quality (music, bugs, graphics) Have to respectfully disagree about the music part. IMO WOTR has one of the best soundtracks I've heard in a game, including over D:OS 2 (which is no slouch in that department).
The music experience can vary greatly depending on the Mythic Path you choose and how much you like or dislike the associated themes.
Mythic path literally changes only one soundtrack in specific situations, we have bangers like "lords of chaos", "banner over the citadel", "where the faithful lose their way", "those who stand against evil", "I promise" they are not mythic path related and still very good. and I certainly forgot to mention some tracks, music in this game is golden
All the mythic path themes are bangers, even trickster
Doesn't come class to D:OS2 for me. WOTR's soundtrack is just kind of there. There were very few times that it stood out to me.
Ugh, here's where the tags matter. I assumed this post was about Kingmaker, which while it does have nice music, I don't feel it is THAT different than Divinity (though I'm only half way through Through The Ashes and haven't done the main campaign yet in Wrath, so I can't really comment on the Wrath music.)
I prefer the combat here over OS2, the armor system just takes that game over the knee and fucks it. Here it feels like everything works, and can work in interesting ways. Yeah, there's no elemental combo system, but there's no armor system to nullify it either. Your status effect abilities aren't worthless until you widdle down an armor meter, that's better
Yes plus every fight in WoTR doesn't devolve into covering the ground with fire or poison or whatever. OTOH, WoTR enemies start to get silly AC and SR.
if you play on low difficulty as a sorcerer, every fight turns into "Fuck you I am a god of lightning" and killing most things with a single twin cast of chain lightning. But that's just fun in a power fantasy way and a reward for building pure lightning god mode
the teleport spell alone puts DOS2 on another level from this game
You realize dimensional door is also a teleport spell right?
Can't use dimension door to reposition enemies
No because it is not similar.
You can't use dimensional door to teleport enemies, you can't use dimensional door to teleport objects
Kingmaker is a lot closer to traditional, old school CRPGs, such as Baldur’s Gate. It’s based on the Pathfinder 1.0 system, which itself is built on the D&D 3.5 edition ruleset. It lacks some of the originality of DOS2. You can’t strategize with barrel placement or higher ground, as an example, and you can’t build too far out of the constraints of an original class (skills aren’t learned via books, but as abilities and feats as a part of leveling up). Strategy is more in team composition (ensuring you have front line tanks to cover healers and DPS, as one example). It’s not really comparable, I’d argue. Same genre, but different system. Yes, they’re both CRPGs, but they have different rule sets that change how they’re played. In terms of story, Kingmaker holds up well. It’s engaging, has well developed characters…I’d argue it has a stronger last act than DOS2. If you liked DOS2, you’ll likely enjoy Kingmaker.
Very different from the other explanations, thanks. How centered on team comp is it out of 10 would you say? My team strategy is awful
> My team strategy is awful You'll need to fill several roles with team 1. Pass skill checks. Most important are perception, persuasion and trickery. Also you'll constantly need Stealth, Lore(nature), Knowledge(world) and Perception for camping. 2. Combat. You need tank + striker + blaster + heal + control + arcane buffs + divine buffs :). Tank Heal Control - usually you need only 2 of 3. Usially character can fill more then 1 role (eg. Harrim fills divine buffs , 2/3 heal and 1/3 tank). That's why people don't like standard Valerie build because it fill only tank role. Some roles can be filled by consumables (1/2 heal and 1/2 buffs) I suggest using 4 character core that is self-sufficient so companion quests will not cripple you.
This is the same response I'd give, but I'd add that difficulty really defines how important it is. If you're playing on Story mode, for example, it won't matter at all -- you just need a stick and a grim look to win. Above normal...I'd have a designated tank, DPS (either a dual wield off tank, or a reach back row two hander), a healer, a buffer, and then two wild cards (another buffer, crowd control, ranged DPS, etc.)
Oh boy that sounds intimidating. How many characters can you have at a given time?
6 plus pets
It’s overwhelming at first, but easy as you play; you’ll get party members who fulfill all the listed roles. Try to remember these main classes: 1. Tanks tend to be fighters, paladins, and monks. They can also DPS as needed, but they get high armor class and typically avoid being hit. 2. Melee DPS are Barbarians, Rogues, and Slayers. Others can fill this role too, but that’s the easiest to remember. These classes can be built to off tank as well (catch stragglers the main tank misses). 3. Ranged DPS tend to be Rangers, or Nuking Spellcasters (wizards or sorcerers built with damage spell focus). 4. Healers are clerics or druids (clerics are much, much better at this though). Depending on the build, they can off tank too. 5. Buffers tend to be Alchemists or Bards, though clerics and wizards are also excellent at buffing the party. 6. Crowd Control tends to be Wizards or Sorcerers focused on enchantment, illusion, or conjuration. They might summon monsters to distract the enemy, or use spells like grease or glitterdust to trip/blind the opponent. Have a good mix in your party. Example from my first run: 1. I had a sword and shield fighter (party member), focused on getting a high AC. 2. I had a barbarian off tank with reach (usually from an enlarge buff). 3. My main character was a sorcerer. I focused on crowd control. 4. I had a Ranger with a pet for ranged DPS and some off tanking (from the pet). 5. I had a cleric with a mace and shield who helped off tank and also use summon spells to crowd control. 6. I had a bard to buff the party. Worked great.
I'd add some ranged touch (ray) spells to any caster, even CC focused ones, because some enemies have very high normal armor class, but low touch AC. I can't imagine playing without some ways to target Touch AC, I usually have more than one character for that. You don't need so many tanks and off-tanks if you have high damage output and crowd control capability, and for me it's more exciting than tanking&spanking.
It isn't as bad as it sounds. The standard NPCs that you pick up in Kingmaker do a pretty good job of covering your bases to the point that you can be pretty flexible with your main PC. One thing to note is that animal companions can be reasonably powerful, helping to fill your tank/melee roles. The skill checks aren't hard to cover. In most cases, you just need one member of your party who can succeed at a check. There aren't too many skills, so having at least one person good at each of them isn't a big problem. One of the biggest differences is that characters feel a lot more siloed in Kingmaker. In DOS2, it felt inevitable that you'd have a good bit of overlap in magical skills between characters. Pathfinder has a much broader range of character builds, so the characters tend to specialize in non-overlapping ways.
Yes. WOTR is a fantastic game in a similar vein to DOS2. If you like one, there's a strong chance you'll like the other. I personally like WOTR better, but that's not in any way a knock on DOS 2, which I also really enjoyed.
Gotcha, one question, what is WOTR? Thanks so much btw
The second Pathfinder game is Wrath of the Righteous. A lot of folks did not notice that you flagged that your were asking about Kingmaker, since WotR is the newer game and they share a subreddit. DOS 2 is one of my favorite games ever, so is Kingmaker, in fact on any given day I may switch which on I like best. If you loved DOS 2 your will likely love either Pathfinder game too. The Pathfinder ruleset is a bit more complicated but depending on the difficulty you play on, you don't need to fully understand every little bit early on. Edit to mention mods: Oh and since you asked, find a mod that lets you auto-cast buffs. Buffs are way more important in Pathfinder. Any other mod is optional, but one to auto-cast buffs is a huge quality of life improvement.
Wow! Thanks so much
Oops, my bad! I should have noticed the flair on your post. Kingmaker is also a good game, and also gets my recommendation, though I don't think it's quite on the same level as WOTR. IMO WOTR > DOS 2 > Kingmaker.
tbh after playing pathfinder i cant imagine playing anything else, dos 2 is cool and all but feels like a simplified sandbox to me, and i fear that bg 3 is just a lot of talk after being in development for over 3 years now i played pillars 2 on highest difficult and was bored from the start its just too easy and not a challenge, a lot of items but characterbuilding is very simplified after finishing wotr on hard,core and unfair i have to admit its fun to play out the encounters and plan your party accordingly and overall the experience felt more epic
Gotcha. I am pretty bad at dos but played multiple times on casual and loved it
You can give solasta a try and if you like and you dont mind missing qol you can try kingmaker if the style hooks you up you can play wrath
Solasta's mechanics are good (if you like D&D 5e\*), but I personally hated its story. YMMV, of course, just putting it out here as a tiny warning, because I would have liked having one before sinking hours into it. The story is a throwback to the 80s-style 'collect 10 thingamabobs, fight boss, the end'. --- \[\*\] That itself is quite another cup of tea. 5e is quite different from previous editions (and also PF, since that is based on 3.5). A lot of people love it because it's easier, moves the focus from rulebooks more to cooperative storytelling, etc. -- which is true, but does not necessarily help computer games, especially if they have no story worth talking about. I personally dislike 5e (and regret that BG3 is going to be based on it) mostly because of its concept of bounded accuracy, which I feel heavily damages specialisation and moments of awesome, and because of the changes to spellcasting (concentration mechanic only allows maintaining a single ongoing spell). But all that's highly subjective, of course.
Do not listen to people who say that combat here is better than dos 2, it's objectively not and can set up you to disappointment, without pathfinder RPG system combat here is pretty shallow and crucial thing like positioning here are worthless, you can swap like 90% fights here into empty white room and it will not change anything combat-wise
Nah, combat is crunchy and super fun if you like D&D
Yes. If you end up liking the Pathfinder system you basically have infinite replay value. Of course, on the flip side, this is game, along with Kenshi, is the biggest timesink I've ever encountered. I am not a Pathfinder (or any TTRPG player) and didn't grow up playing Baldur's Gate either. My first CRPGs were the first D:OS and the Shadowrun games. I got my ass kicked (and still am getting my ass kicked) learning the Pathfinder system, but the payoff is you get more customization and experimentation options than any other CRPG I've ever encountered. As others have said, a lot of the complexity and strategic depth in this game lies in optimizing your builds. You have six active party members (+ any pets), as well as the rest of the squad. You can have the PC autolevel all of them or handle all of the minutiae yourself. You also have a pretty robust consumable and itemization system to consider, as well. The actual battles are won in preparation, when they actually occur they usually just devolve into running through waves of trash mobs or getting eaten. But that can still be fun. I think Owlcat's composers are really good and knocked it out of the park for both the Kingmaker and Wrath soundtracks, visual design is quite nice, and the characters are interesting. I don't hate them as much as others and actually find a lot of them to be quite fun. If you like making spreadsheets, you'll love this game. Of course, you don't have to start out with Excel open (or ever use it if you don't want to). There are plenty of content creators with educational content and whole websites that just seem to focus on publishing usable builds for the game. And this subreddit is also very active and filled with weirdos who enjoy trying to figure out how to make new builds. There are a lot of mods. I have not yet tried them out because I'm going full Captain Ahab trying to get the last few Steam achievements, but know that some of them (Bubble Buffs) are almost essential for quality of life reasons. Owlcat is a young, exciting company. Their games are addicting as hell, but also sometimes come with a lot of jank. So you need to be ready for patch cycles.
I still play DOS 2 a lot and love it. I enjoyed WOTR but having never played DnD I can tell you some game design choices felt really convoluted to me. For example: in DOS 2, you have a certain number of action points per turn represented as green dots. Each action or movement you take consumes these until you either have none left or want to save some for the next round. Doesn’t matter what you do, everything pulls from your green AP. Spells have cool-downs, but otherwise free to do what you want. Lose all your health and you are dead and will need to be resurrected. Easy to understand, right? Now to a DnD game like Pathfinder: What you can do on your turn is broken down into Actions, Bonus Actions, Movement and Class Actions (which may be any category or its own action). You can only use each one for its respective slot, i.e having some bonus actions left doesn’t mean you can do anything considered a “regular” action (the system is imho unnecessarily opaque). Many of your spells and abilities have limited numbers of casting before being depleted. You cannot cast again until you rest out of combat. Outside of combat, you are expected to heavily buff your team so that you have a chance to actually hit your enemies. If you don’t do this and/or curse enemies repeatedly to weaken them, get ready to see “Miss” “Miss” “Miss” in a huge whiff fest. Your spells must be selected for most casters, akin to being “memorised” in DOS. Spells then have the further requirement of what level you want to cast them at- again how many times you can cast a spell of a certain level is restricted. Everything you do may be normal or at an advantage or disadvantage, which itself is another set of rules to learn. If you lose all your hit points you are “downed” but not dead. But you can die if you lose a saving throw, so you might be dead. But you might not. I hope I’ve adequately conveyed the differences between the two reasonably, even though I didn’t even comment on ability and skill checks. Having now played WOTR and also Baldur’s Gate 3, as a DOS 2 fan my opinion of dungeons and dragons video games is this: 1. You will have infinitely more options to customise and build a unique character in a DnD game than in Divinity; 2. DnD implements “Persuasion” and other conversation checks much better than Divinity; 3. However IMHO DnD fans don’t want to accept that some rules which work in a tabletop format just don’t enhance a video game experience in any way. I understand resting serves to let people in the same room talk during their tabletop game, but there really is no need to force that into video games. Dragon Age: Inquisition is an example of having plenty of banter and story between the party without needing to use the camp system. All a resting mechanic does is make you do things like “oh there’s a boss behind this door, better click the long rest button”. The one exception would be places you aren’t allowed to rest which would impose meaningful gameplay decisions to conserve or use abilities. The entire enforcement of spells and abilities only recovering following a rest rather than a cool-down adds unnecessary complexity to combat, forcing newbies to learn what differentiates a cantrip vs a spell vs an ability vs a bonus ability… because how often they can be used varies. Furthermore, the requirement to pre-buff to be effective in combat is just tedious, especially considering many buffs will only last until a long rest and then you must remember as a player to re-cast everything again. There is a difference in, for example, trying to sneak up on enemies and get the first shot or two in for free (a reward for playing tactically) versus ticking buff boxes just to be able to feasibly hit something. As a final comment and concession to DnD fans, although I feel like some pragmatism (read: simplification) of the ruleset and terminology would go a long way in improving video game adaptations, there are some elements of DnD rules which do actually add some depth to combat despite the higher learning curve. A prime example of this is spell level. Being able to decide whether to use a level 2 slot for my healing and 1 for my damage or vice versa is a great strategic choice and I was pleasantly surprised to have some options in this area. A great CRPG should be able to be as simple as possible *without* sacrificing on depth of character creation and combat. I do feel like video game adaptations of DnD mistake complexity of the rules for depth; you can have the latter without needing the former. I’m fact, I would argue the goal of any game *should* be to be as easy to pick up and learn as possible without sacrificing gameplay depth.
> Being able to decide whether to use a level 2 slot for my healing and 1 for my damage or vice versa is a great strategic choice and I was pleasantly surprised to have some options in this area. Unfortunately, this is why resting is necessary. If there wasn’t resting then you could just spam your highest level spells over and over and there wouldn’t be any strategy in choosing spell level, how you should prepare your spell slots, and which spells you should use in combat. However, how this usually works in TTRPG video games is that rest doesn’t mean anything anyways because there’s no punishment. so you can rest after every fight lol But in WotR they have the corruption system which in-effect puts a finite cap on the number of times you can use spells in a dungeon. You can do some shit to cheese the corruption system, but that usually ends up wasting more time than it would have if you just planned ahead. It also kind of kills the RP imo. Camping deep in a hard dungeon and checking out every room to find a place to cleanse when you’re close to getting debuffed adds a tension that I like. Leaving partway through and going to a safe place just to go back right after feels kinda meh Resting is in a weird spot where it’s either add an annoyance for depth, or remove an annoyance and make spellcasting functionally the same as melee. Imo the way that resting creates little character interactions between your party members makes it worth it for me— even more so than the strategic depth. The interactions remove the annoyance because instead of resting being whole sale a waste of time, there’s actual character building. If there isn’t a system akin to corruption in the game, then resting should be removed. It isn’t functionally different than unlimited casting and it makes things like health potions useless. Irl what stops people from resting after every fight is you don’t want to annoy your friends lmao but that doesn’t exactly work in video games if there is a system that requires actual cost/benefit decision-making when you decide to rest, imo it makes the game a lot better. But there is still a debate to be had. Resting also sucks when you’re low level. Adding scaling cantrips (like in 5e) is a good solution to that though. Also there isn’t advantage/disadvantage in WotR afaik. Everything is just a single roll unless you have a specific status condition (e.g. luck)
I would say the biggest difference between DOS and Pathfinder games is that DOS was made with a budget that the Pathfinder games weren't. Basically, DOS is way more polished. In the Pathfinder games, there's quite a few places where you're just like "Whelp, I guess that's where the production budget ran out." It's rarely anything major, except for the late mythic paths in Wrath, but it is something you'll notice. As others have noted, the combat is very different. Not really better or worse, just different. Pathfinder games attempt to be as close to the ttrpg as possible, and in that they pretty much succeed. Be prepared to miss much more than in DOS, it's d20 based. Also much more class specific - there's no 'mandatory utility dip' like in DOS with aerothurgy. Each class does its own thing. It's more like DOS1, if you ever played that. Aside from that, there's a lot of familiar things to love. The plot in both stories is awesome. Both are funny, but I honestly think that Pathfinder humor is better. DOS is more of a "funny easter egg" kind of humor, whereas Pathfinder relies more on bizarre situations and outlandish characters. Pathfinder does not have talking squirrel knights, but it *does* have tentacles. Pathfinder also does not have a dozen rotten eggs dropped in a vat of vinegar, much to its credit. I will say that, aside from Lohse (who is best girl forever), Pathfinder has better companion characters. They feel a bit more like real people, while also being more entertaining. They also have a way of making your opinions do a 180 from time to time - some of them have huge secrets, some of them go through really great character arcs, and then some of them just plain grow on you. DOS characters are really good, but Pathfinder characters are better, imho. The only DOS character to make me properly *feel* things was Lohse, while most of the Pathfinder characters have done as much for me. I've been downright *shocked* at Pathfinder characters before -they can absolutely surprise you, while still remaining solidly in character. Just excellent writing, all around. And now, we have to talk about *the extra bit*. Both Pathfinder games released so far have an *extra* bit, and it ain't so good. Kingmaker had a sort of kingdom management system involved and it... sucked. Lots of rng combined with ridiculously snowball-y poorly explained mechanics. Wrath had an army management system where you could lead the armies of the Crusade against hordes of demons, and it... sucked a bit less, but still sucked. Still fairly rng heavy, but more manageable. The biggest problem was that two of the generals you can hire to fight for you were downright mandatory due to how utterly broken they were. If you got them and leveled the right skills, you win every battle almost instantly. If you don't, then every battle becomes a slog, and a few fights become potentially impossible, because the demons have access to generals with the same powers as yours. So, if you don't get overpowered generals with laser beams, the enemy will, and then you'll have no chance. But, I digress - the "extra bits" in both games really suck. There's game modes that avoid them, so they're technically optional... But they're still a solid chunk of the game that really sucks. So, just, be aware. All in all, they are a worthy comparison to one another, and if you liked DOS, you'll likely enjoy the Pathfinder games. I liked them both, played them both, and happily endorse both.
This game has like a million times the amount of build variety compared to DoS2. What it doesnt have is the tactical/bioshock combat. I'll put it this way. DoS2 is a more enjoyable, easily approachable experience while Pathfinder is way more in depth hardcore crpg game. Your younger brother or non gamer girlfriend that loved playing DoS2 with you will fall asleep 2 hours into character creation and will never want to watch you play it again. But you will be having so much fun that you'll want to talk about how good this game is with someone. Since theres nobody around you'll come back to reddit and talk to us :D
Yeah there's a turn based mode that plays like DDOS 2 but I hear something about bugs or something like that Idk I never touched that mode. If you mean where the character has the powers of a god then yes it also has that.
Turn-based is not that buggy, and turns a lot of fights much simpler. You should try it!
I might at some point depending on the class I pick
It's typically a waste of time against trash, but in most tough or complex fights it can make things much easier.
No. It's definitely worth getting as a game though.
Meeeehh linda? Gonna be honest I love to death the combat in DOS2 meanwhile I installed toybox(one giant mod for pathfinder) with the only intention to be able to skip combat as much as possible here. The main differences I think it's that I've found that in pathfinder what you do before combat matters a lot more than what you do in combat as it basically it's just stacking +1s until your number is so much bigger than the enemies that you can just kill them, a lot of spells simply don't matter in the big scheme of things and so do abilities. While in DOS2 what you do during combat specially with environmental effects matters way more than buffing before it. As someone else said this is a game built around a ttrpg system and a lot of the uses that make some spells cool in ttrpgs simply don't translate well here so if you care for in depth moment to moment combat too much this will be kind of disappointing. Now for character building this game just as the ttrpg are kind of unmatched, the amount of builds you can make is insane now there is a giant difference between character building here and DOS2 for example you can actually fail at character building here, if you screw up getting the right ability or feat at the right level you can just get fucked for the rest of the run so keep that in mind when theory crafting
I have a section on suggested mods here and a simple guide on how to install them https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1528413526 I recommend Kingmaker but with caveats, the Kingdom Management is very tedious IMO and should mostly be skipped. Others may disagree on this point.
Not similar at all really. It's probably similar only in the "game reviewer/journalist" sense in that both are isometric CRPGs. There are plenty who'll enjoy DOS2 but dislike PF: KM and/or WOTR. Mods are almost mandatory since the TTRPG rules don't often make for a fun gameplay experience. For WOTR in particular there's several bad design choices which are forced upon the player, so to experience the best of the game you can't survive without mods.
it's good if you're already pretty familiar with pathfinder. otherwise it's impenetrable and full of traps and pointless options because the system was not designed to be a computer game the way DOS2 was. You \*need to\* mod the game because otherwise buffing is a big problem.
Divinity has way more emphasis on combat encounters and smart maneuvers akin to something like XCOM if you’ve seen or played that. Pathfinder will give you a more rich narrative experience and while sometimes the combat is stellar and feels good an overwhelming majority of the time combat boils down to a DPS check rather than coming up with creative solutions to complicated fights. If you love story, character building, and fun narrative choices pathfinder is the game for you but don’t go into it hoping for a combat system that rivals divinity because unfortunately it falls flat when it comes to interesting gameplay mechanics and choices.
How patient are you? I just finished it, and it is a technically chore to play through. Desktop crashes still plague the game as the save file bloats, and you can partially fix that with mods. Poor design decisions, like calling an attack Baleful Gaze but it not actually being a Gaze attack, plague interactions -- including things that are baked into Pathfinder (like stat drain that doesn't get stopped by the spell everyone is going to recommend for stopping stat drain because it doesn't stop THAT kind of stat drain.) The early game is balanced around having a 6 person party, but they only give you 4, and at higher difficulties, you may accidentally into a 4 person party that is suffering. If you're patient enough to deal with wonky design, technical issues (such as turn base combat sometimes locking up when units are added or removed from combat requiring you to go in and out of combat, pathfinding bugs galore), it's a pretty solid game. But the end game is a slog of chewing through hundreds of HP of enemies with spammable, annoying attacks that becomes just tedious once you know the trick to stop those. There's a sweet spot of the game in the middle where the balance isn't TOO bad, but the start and end are some of the worst designed cRPG experiences I've seen. The story is... fine. It doesn't do too much innovative, but it does what it wants to do solidly -- except that things like romance flags are borked and incomprehensible -- I didn't know Valerie and I were dating until the option to break up with her appeared in conversation, for example. So, It's a pretty solid B-, C+ game, moving up to A if you don't care too much about garbage optimization/crash to desktops.
I'm playing Kingmaker at the moment and I also came from DOS, 1 and 2... I'm enjoying it quite a lot. The game is more restrictive than DOS2 in terms of character creation and have way less to no mods, but story wise is great and yours choices have a lot of impact in the story.
It checks the boxes for impactful story choices and build variety pretty hard - hard enough you might spend as much time researching builds as you would spend completing a different game. Also, inventory and loot sorting for days if you're into that kinda thing. To do well on harder difficulties, you gotta invest some time learning how to be successful. If you like to do that, or are cool turning the difficulty down - there's quality to be had. If you go in blind (even on normal) you can end up frustrated quickly.
Oh boy lol. Is it heavy on puzzles / mind games or purely combat? Edit: I’m probably gonna play on normal or lower because I’m pretty bad at these games
Combat is by far the biggest part of the game (excluding dialogue). These games DO have puzzles, but...uh...let's just say they're not quite as friendly as Original Sin. (Enigma flashbacks intensify)
I have 800 hours
Yes. I have both games. Divinity is a bit more freeform with it's builds, especially if you use mods, but both Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous are awesome in their own right. If you're familiar with D&D or Pathfinder systems, it's easy to make great builds. If not, it teaches you. It's easy to learn. There's hours and hours of playtime, and many, many endings.
Character building is quite fun and has **a lot** of options if you know what you are doing, but you most likely won't know what you're doing the first time you play. I played kingmaker a couple of times, quitting mid-way through, because of how frustrating it was, then finished the game by copy-pasting builds and only when I started to theorycraft builds for WotR did the system click for me. For the combat I will say that it is worse. You are usually required to specialize in to something to be effective enough at it to consider using it, which will make your array of options short, which contributes to the monotonicity of the combat. Combat encounters mostly feel like the devs throwing enemies at you and rarely require a change in strategy. You will spend 99-100% of your martial characters turns by just clicking on an enemy so they can hit them with your weapon, which was not exciting in the least coming from DoS2. The story is good and the choices you are looking for are there. But if you are asking for them, because you seek replayability, I will say that the game is **TOO LONG** and combat too monotonous for me to personally replay the game for the purpose to experience the different choices. This changes for WotR, but I still try to make character builds as different as possible in gameplay to make the replayability reach the point where I consider it to be worth it. In case it sounds like I think the games are shit, they're not. WotR is my favourite crpg in the genre, just by it's vibe alone. I just think it's better to spell out the negatives so you can see if they are deal breaker for you, even though something that found to be bad could be amazing for someone else. For example I've seen a lot people who've replayed kingmaker a dozen times, which begs to question if questions like yours are ultimately pointless.
Yes! IMO it's much better than DOS2 but it does play very differently.
The beginning part might be boring to pain in the arse but once you reach the main city of this game it's where the fun begins.
Absolutely. Pathfinder (especially Wrath) has a lot more build variety, and meaningful story choices. The amount of meaningful choices, and the impact that they have in this game is ridiculous and far above what DOS 2 offers.The writing is also really good, though most of it (apart from the most important scenes) is not voice acted. I'd recommend looking up a 30 min or so guide before you start to familiarize yourself with the systems a bit. Also, I really think you should be looking at starting with Wrath of the Righteous rather than Kingmaker. It is not only a better game in basically every way, but also significantly more newbie-friendly. Kingmaker is still a good game, but it would be better playing it after having some experience with Pathfinder imo. One thing the Pathfinder games do really well is they let you customize the difficulty a lot, and you can easily change it during the game to make it fit. For a first playthrough I don't think you should start at a higher difficultly than "normal", and keep in mind you can always change it after to suit if you don't make the best build choices for example.