Pathfinder vs. Divinity 2 vs. Pillars 2

[Tacgnol]

A wizard with an high Might isn't a character with incredible muscles, but a character that knows how to focus his internal mystical energies to achieve humanly impossible feats.

The problem with that is that Pillars had loads of might checks in dialogue/vignettes that involved physicality and roughing people up. It's quite jarring when you want to RP a physically weak wizard but you get all these options for the old Commander Shephard collar grab coming up.

 

[NJClaw]

A wizard with an high Might isn't a character with incredible muscles, but a character that knows how to focus his internal mystical energies to achieve humanly impossible feats.

The problem with that is that Pillars had loads of might checks in dialogue/vignettes that involved physicality and roughing people up. It's quite jarring when you want to RP a physically weak wizard but you get all these options for the old Commander Shephard collar grab coming up.

Maybe I can't understand this particular issue because I haven't played the game with an high Might wizard, but can't you justify those checks with the usage of some sort of spell that gives you a burst of energies or a particularly frightening appearance? If those particular spells don't fit your character, you can also completely ignore those checks.

 

[Varnaan]

Kingmaker and Original Sin 2 are both excellent games in their own rights.
OS2
Played the game on Classic difficulty.
I understand that people dislike the itemization system of OS2 but the only time I felt it was an issue was at the very end when I had a cool shield with great stats and had to "upgrade" it for one with worse stats but better armor ratings for the final stretch.
I don't really get the gripes people have with the writing, the game was fairly tonally consistent with some patches of lightheartedness in a sea of mostly grim writing, much better than the first Original Sin in this aspect.
There are some things that I would have preferred to be different, like some parts of the UI and the progression system, but overall a really cool game, great gameplay, tough encounters (the first time around), compelling story and characters/companions and a lot of replayability.

Kingmaker
Played the game on Challenging mode and had no prior knowledge of the Pathfinder ruleset.
Nothing really bad to say about this game, I even enjoyed the kingdom management, my only gripe would be with the loot distribution, ! felt powerful items were handed out too early thus there was no real progression equipment-wise for large stretches of the game.
The main quest/narrative was also a bit bland, not much flavor, but all the little things around it amply compensated this, and the difficulty fell off a cliff after chapter 2 and only really picked up in the very final stretch to the final boss.

PoE2
Less bland than PoE, but somehow also less compelling, everything from moving around to talking to an NPC felt extremely padded, I remember even less about it than I do PoE, and the naval combat was awful.

Kingmaker = OS2
PoE2 MIA

 

[Darth Canoli]

A built in Turn Based mode.

Really ? They said multiple times they would not do it, any link/source ?

 

[Pink Eye]

A built in Turn Based mode.

Really ? They said multiple times they would not do it, any link/source ?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/posts/2755596

They were at first against it, but changed their minds.

 

[Haplo]

Also for me in many aspects it is superior to Baldur's Gate. Except Magic system, companions and main quest/villain, I guess.

Player stronghold : 1 very boring filler stronghold VS dozens of strongholds deepening on the player class each one with his quest and peculiarities

Ok.

Setting : I just found the Deities on PoE lackluster

Well, I've found them interesting. Refreshing even.

IMO it goes:

Side quests : Deadfire wins
Class variety : Deadfire wins and its not even a contest
Itemization : Deadfire wins
Spell quality : BG2 wins - although there are some new interesting effects in Deadfire, that fit the real time combat well (rays, walls, Combusting Wounds and such)
Spell quantity : BG2 with over 300 wins. Ok.
Necromancy : Amazing on BG2 vs non existent on PoE 1/2. Huh? You can summon skeletons as a Chanter. Drain life force with certain weapons. Greatly debuff enemies with wizard, cipher or cleric spells. Dead raw negative nergy-like damage against a Fortitude save, so... there might not be a specialization that is called there, but most of the effects exist?
Side quests : Yeah, we've been there already. IMO Deadfire wins this one.
Armor system : Nope, Deadfire.
Amount of classes and subclasses : Ehm, didn's exactly count. Anyway, Deadfire offers much greater variety and class distinction. Deadfire wins this one.
Dungeon design : BG2 wins. Hmm, Ok, I'l give you that. Some dungeons in Deadfire are very good. Just... not that numerous. Forgotten Sanctum is also a great dungeon.
Encounter design : Nope, Deadfire. Much more enemy variety. Much more ability variety. Martials are not one-tick ponies.
Writing : BG2. Hmm.. maybe.

 

[overly excitable young man]

They all suck hard and you shouldnt waste your time with obvious crap.

 

[Varnaan]

stuff

It seems your issues lie with AD&D in general.
I'd tend to agree that parts and bits of PoE2 are superior to BG2 but BG2 is a much better game as a whole.
I'm not even a big fan of BG2, I prefer BG and Icewind Dale, but I can sit through BG2 and enjoy it, PoE2 is just soporific.

 

[Sharpedge]

Player stronghold : 1 very boring filler stronghold VS dozens of strongholds deepening on the player class each one with his quest and peculiarities
Setting : I just found the Deities on PoE lackluster
Side quests : BG2 wins
Armor system : BG2 wins.
Amount of classes and subclasses : BG2 wins
Dungeon design : BG2 wins
Encounter design : BG2 wins

I'll leave out commentary on the subjective stuff like the setting, writing and side quests (although for the record, I do prefer BG2 here as well).

Class variety : BG2 wins
Amount of classes and subclasses : BG2 wins

Deadfire has 11 classes, BG 2 ToB has 10. I am discounting sorcerer as a separate class because in terms of gameplay it is almost functionally identical to a wizard. In Deadfire you can do the equivalent of multiclass any combination of those 11 classes, vs being heavily restricted in which classes can duel/multiclass in BG 2. Depending on whether you consider class restrictions to be a positive or negative this is either a good or a bad thing for you (I see it as a positive) however, there is no denying that in terms of class variety, Deadfire wins with no contest.

Itemization : BG2 wins

Its a close comparison between items in BG 2 and items in Deadfire. I am not sure which game's items I would rank higher. I think BG's items had more "flavor" to them, but in terms of creative item design, the unique items in both games are both very good.

Spell quality : BG2 wins
Spell quantity : BG2 with over 300 wins
Necromancy : Amazing on BG2 vs non existent on PoE 1/2

BG definitely has the upper hand with spellcasters, I will give you that. Fights between casters is an iconic part of Baldur's Gate.

Armor system : BG2 wins.

The armour system between both games is similar in a lot of ways, if you know the rules. Mechanically I would say Deadfire is more solid however it has a rather unintuitive method of resolving the addition and subtraction of bonuses which results in the "sum" of a +15% bonus and a -15% bonus not cancelling each other out (for the sake of not needlessly complicating my response I won't bother to explain what they do, but its not intuitive). Why they did what they did here I will likely never understand, but it is what it is.

Dungeon design : BG2 wins

I'll give this to BG. Deadfire has 1 or 2 very well designed dungeons, which are then let down by a lot of not so well designed dungeons.

Encounter design : BG2 wins

The boss fights in Baldur's Gate 2 are definitely more memorable. BG has some of my favorite fights, whilst Deadfire lays claim to my least favorite fight of all time (that horrible ooze megaboss). On the other hand, I found the trash fights in Deadfire to be much less offensive than the trash fights in BG. Both games have trash, but it felt like it was worse in BG. I would say BG has better boss fights but worse trash fights. Overall I will give it to BG since slogging through trash fights to fight the occasional memorable boss is a better net experience than slogging through trash for some not so memorable bosses, or bosses that are memorable for all the wrong reasons.

I personally prefer BG 1 and 2, but I won't pretend that Deadfire didn't do some things better than it.

 

[Serious_Business]

Also for me in many aspects it is superior to Baldur's Gate. Except Magic system, companions and main quest/villain, I guess.

Player stronghold : 1 very boring filler stronghold VS dozens of strongholds deepening on the player class each one with his quest and peculiarities

Ok.

Setting : I just found the Deities on PoE lackluster

Well, I've found them interesting. Refreshing even.

IMO it goes:

Side quests : Deadfire wins
Class variety : Deadfire wins and its not even a contest
Itemization : Deadfire wins
Spell quality : BG2 wins - although there are some new interesting effects in Deadfire, that fit the real time combat well (rays, walls, Combusting Wounds and such)
Spell quantity : BG2 with over 300 wins. Ok.
Necromancy : Amazing on BG2 vs non existent on PoE 1/2. Huh? You can summon skeletons as a Chanter. Drain life force with certain weapons. Greatly debuff enemies with wizard, cipher or cleric spells. Dead raw negative nergy-like damage against a Fortitude save, so... there might not be a specialization that is called there, but most of the effects exist?
Side quests : Yeah, we've been there already. IMO Deadfire wins this one.
Armor system : Nope, Deadfire.
Amount of classes and subclasses : Ehm, didn's exactly count. Anyway, Deadfire offers much greater variety and class distinction. Deadfire wins this one.
Dungeon design : BG2 wins. Hmm, Ok, I'l give you that. Some dungeons in Deadfire are very good. Just... not that numerous. Forgotten Sanctum is also a great dungeon.
Encounter design : Nope, Deadfire. Much more enemy variety. Much more ability variety. Martials are not one-tick ponies.
Writing : BG2. Hmm.. maybe.

Fun : ?

Altho, to be more serious, the more important point :

Necromancy : Amazing on BG2 vs non existent on PoE 1/2

And thus PoE 1-2 : shit games

 

[Haplo]

It seems your issues lie with AD&D in general.

True, I do think its an extremaly limited and outdated system.

Give it some Tome of Battle style rules, at least, FFS!

 

[Cryomancer]

I am discounting sorcerer as a separate class because in terms of gameplay it is almost functionally identical to a wizard.

Not needing scrolls is a huge good thing and having a limited spell selection a huge bad thing. It makes sorcerer far more solo friendly but far less versatile. You are also ignoring subclasses

I would say BG has better boss fights but worse trash fights.

Except that a single AoE spell a trash fight. On Deadfire, everything needs a really long time to die. Mainly on turn based mode.

True, I do think its an extremaly limited and outdated system.

Yes, because by being "dated" automatically means bad. The stat stickie wow clone style of attributes is far more modern...

 

[Haplo]

I would say BG has better boss fights but worse trash fights.

Except that a single AoE spell a trash fight. On Deadfire, everything needs a really long time to die. Mainly on turn based mode.

In Deadfire a single spell can also end many encounters. You just need to invest in good combos. And set it up properly.
Like here

Of course that won't work on more bullet spongy enemies. But with all of their helpers disposed, these fights are much easier also.

True, I do think its an extremaly limited and outdated system.

Yes, because by being "dated" automatically means bad. The stat stickie wow clone style of attributes is far more modern...

Was that comparison with WoW related to PoE? I don't understand.

Anyway, for me it was dated already when Baldur's Gate was first released. Fallout had a vastly better system for example. As did Arcanum (although combat was rather poor there).
In Planesacpe:Torment it was only decent due to heavy custom modifications.

 

[Sharpedge]

Not needing scrolls is a huge good thing and having a limited spell selection a huge bad thing. It makes sorcerer far more solo friendly but far less versatile. You are also ignoring subclasses

I prefer solo gameplay, I know this. I would still consider sorcerer to be closer to a wizard sub class than a proper class in terms of functionality. I am ignoring subclasses to the benefit of Baldur's Gate, if I count them, it swings even further in favor of Deadfire. Each class in Deadfire has at minimum 4 sub classes, which change the way the class plays. Blood Mage for example has the option to refill their spell slots during combat by sacrificing hitpoints. There is a monk specialization that gains wounds so long as it is drugged, etc. If we count all possible sub classes as well as multi class + duel class combinations, there are 1229 possible unique class combinations (taking into account multiclassing the different sub classes against each other) for Deadfire and 49 for BG 2. They are not even competing in the same league. The restrictions on which classes can multiclass or duel class leaves BG 2 in the dust in this regard.

Except that a single AoE spell a trash fight. On Deadfire, everything needs a really long time to die. Mainly on turn based mode.

I believe Haplo responded to this adequately in his picture above.

 

[Varnaan]

True, I do think its an extremaly limited and outdated system.

Yes, because by being "dated" automatically means bad. The stat stickie wow clone style of attributes is far more modern...

I'm not sure that was really the point he tried to make but regardless of how much l like the games (or not), it's true that the AD&D ruleset in the IE games is very shoddy and sort of "fire and forget" in many ways, I.E. all Rangers/Fighters/Paladins will max STR, get 16 Dex, 14 or 16 Constitution, some Wisdom maybe for saves (But I don't think that's implemented), and that's about it, equipment is very much just using the higher tier weapon (except for a few specific ones that have higher damage roll bonuses than their enhancement level), armor is the more AC the better, some abilities are not/poorly implemented (Charisma), Magic is also very "boring" in the sense that for a Wiz/Sorc you'll always use Chromatic Orb/Magic Missile, Melf/Fire arrow, Fireball, Blur, Mirror Image etc...
So I can at least see where Haplo is coming from.

 

[Daidre]

Damn, it is so sad when people I actually like shitspeak BG 2 to make that horrible turd aka Deadfire look good.

Encounter design : Nope, Deadfire. Much more enemy variety. Much more ability variety. Martials are not one-tick ponies.

Damn, Haplo have you replayed BG 2 in this decade at least?

EDIT: I have not played Deadfire DLCs but in the main game 2/3 of the enemies is just generic Barbarian 15, Priest 10, Rogue 10 etc. From 5 types of skeletons with different classes to Snake people with Barbarian - Mage - Ranger class levels to VFampyres with one unique ability and 6 classes.

And all of them, from Kobolds or whatever they call them to Fire Giants use mostly the same AI template you can easily check in your own AI configuration window as default one for each class.
And in the end every fancy Pwgra and her advanced version Hwgra is just lvl 10 and lvl 15 druid who casts the same spells from the same very limited spellbook.

 

[BarbequeMasta]

POE2 has RTWP and TB and shit mechanics/story, DOS2 has a well implemented TB but by far even shittier mechanics/story, Kingmaker has RTWP and TB(through mods) and generally good mechanics and story but keep in mind that the game clearly wasn't made for TB so playing with that mod is a lot slower and depending on patience can be considered a huge slog.

 

[Haplo]

Damn, it is so sad when people I actually like shitspeak BG 2 to make that horrible turd aka Deadfire look good.

Encounter design : Nope, Deadfire. Much more enemy variety. Much more ability variety. Martials are not one-tick ponies.

Damn, Haplo have you replayed BG 2 in this decade at least?

I will admit that no. But I ever repeat very few games. Baldur's Gate didn't make enough of an impression.
I mean sure, the scope was epic. A few select party/mage/boss fights memorable. Magic system still unrivalled.

But like I wrote, I considered AD&D 2 system poor (barring magic) and outdated even these 20 years ago.
It really was frustrating for me that all those martial classes and kits were still auto-attack bots. Character building involved nearly no decisions.

So yeah, it was never a top crpg contender for me. Had more fun with Neverwinter Nights, actually.


Deadfire has its fair share of problems, I don't deny that. However calling it a horrible turd goes too far IMO. On balance I do like it more that BG2.
I've certainly spent way more time playing it... and trying out different characters and builds. At least character building and itemization has meaning and variety in Deadfire.

 

[Daidre]

So yeah, it was never a top crpg contender for me. Had more fun with Neverwinter Nights, actually.

You are missing out a lot if you never played BG 1 & 2 with the ~2009+ version of SCS. Of course it not very fair to compare original with the mod, but nothing makes more prominent all AI and encounter design issues in the recent big RTwP games like P:K and POE than SCS. Nowhere else (I've played) enemies were smart enough to run out of your persistent AoE spells.

 

[Cryomancer]

Magic is also very "boring" in the sense that for a Wiz/Sorc you'll always use Chromatic Orb/Magic Missile, Melf/Fire arrow, Fireball, Blur, Mirror Image etc...

Wrong, my first character on Infinity Engine games was a necromancer specialized wizard which din't had Chromatic Orb, Mirror Image, Blur and i always picked skull trap over fireball as a sorcerer. And note that some people generally rolls for attributes rather than just choosing. Is more fun. I remember my sorcerer with 7 DEX on ToEE, Din't picked a single "touch" spell for him.

As for weapon and armor, you don't always pick the "highest number". If you are fighting golems, blunt weapons are far more effective than slashes, enemy with plate armor is also far more vulnerable to blunt weapons.

 

[JohnSmith24601]

By the way i don't get offended by other's persons butthurt

See? Victor has a thick skin. He knows where is at. He also knows how to fire back too!

Except that Pillars got founded exactly to be a "BG spiritual successor" and is inferior to BG in ANY aspect, except graphics.

Not disagreeing here, mostly because I don't have a formal opinion about PoE to really comment. But don't deny that one of the main reason you don't like the game is its magic system, particularly that is "balanced" instead of "fun" or "immersive", which is a pet peeve of yours. You really hate the word balance in fact.

My beef is not with profanity though. I thought you were bullying him because that's usually the cue. Some guy stalks some other guy across threads and trashes his opinions because he's salty over something that was said months ago. You get the picture. But like, if you guys are just saying "fuck you" to each other in a brotherly, fist-bumping way, then you may resume your normal duties, citizen. Good day.

 

[JohnSmith24601]

When you have high strength, not only are you good at hitting things with a spear, you also do more damage with said spear. (Faster, more impactful force.) To me, that really indicates what having tremendous strength is like. Before getting into bodybuilding in real life, I could not wield my Zweihänder very well. But now, I can actually be a lot more accurate and faster with it. (Well, as good as it can be against a practice dummy anyways lol...)

But after having gained more muscles, are your skills with daggers improved and are you able to inflict deadlier wounds with them? Are you able to inflict deadlier wounds with a bow? Because that's what an high Strength score does. And the same absurd result can be obtained for every other ability. Take Dexterity for example: as an archer you want an high score, so now you also know how to hide, move silently and evade attacks. Why? Can't an excellent archer be a big fat-ass? Charisma: you are the most beautiful woman in the world, nobody could ever resist you... so now you are a great liar and you can scream to scare your opponents.
.

Hmm...yes and yes? Having bigger muscles means you can thrust the dagger faster and therefore create a bigger impact force. I would say that your motor control in general is improved as you gain muscles, though I would agree that your "to hit" chance should probably be determined by a combination of dex and perception stats. Raw power though should be determined by raw strength, which is different from say, punching a dagger through someone's armor because you spotted a weak point. That's a completely different matter.

Bows are a little complicated. In real life, if you want to inflict a lot of damage with arrows, you actually have to have a lot of strength to even draw a heavier bow. Archery is actually a VERY exhausting sport. Normally, most people have trouble handling a recurve bow with just 50 lb draw weight. My mentor who's been at it for most of his life can do 100 lb or so, and then you have these beasts of men who hunt rhinos and shit with bows of 200+ lb draw weight. Notice I'm not talking about compound bows here because we don't have that in fantasy RPG's (I don't think). I think this is represented in Kingmaker in the form of the composite bow. Your dex determines to hit chance but your strength actually determines the damage. I guess this makes sense because you may handle a bow with a bigger draw weight if you're stronger. (Bigger draw weight -->> Faster Arrows -->> More impact force) But again, it's a little complicated, though I think this is a good enough abstract.

I think we're not saying that there's no problem with this kind of abstraction, it's just that this is still better than Pillars' system by a lot. Personally, I would accept that DnD dexterity stat makes you hide and dodge better more so than PoE Might stat makes your wizard beefier than your tank.

 

[Varnaan]

Magic is also very "boring" in the sense that for a Wiz/Sorc you'll always use Chromatic Orb/Magic Missile, Melf/Fire arrow, Fireball, Blur, Mirror Image etc...

Wrong, my first character on Infinity Engine games was a necromancer specialized wizard which din't had Chromatic Orb, Mirror Image, Blur and i always picked skull trap over fireball as a sorcerer. And note that some people generally rolls for attributes rather than just choosing. Is more fun. I remember my sorcerer with 7 DEX on ToEE, Din't picked a single "touch" spell for him.

As for weapon and armor, you don't always pick the "highest number". If you are fighting golems, blunt weapons are far more effective than slashes, enemy with plate armor is also far more vulnerable to blunt weapons.

Skull Trap is pretty much a delayed fireball but I get your point, necromancers in low level campaigns are gimps though.
Regarding switching weapon types, meh, except maybe to finish trolls.
I think most groups will have at least one character proficient with a kind of blunt weapon, also would the bonus you get vs Skeletons or Golems outweigh your proficiency bonus in say great swords?
It's something I'd do in BG for the skeletons but in BG2, why bother except on a few specific encounters at most ?

 

[Yosharian]

A wizard with an high Might isn't a character with incredible muscles, but a character that knows how to focus his internal mystical energies to achieve humanly impossible feats.

The problem with that is that Pillars had loads of might checks in dialogue/vignettes that involved physicality and roughing people up. It's quite jarring when you want to RP a physically weak wizard but you get all these options for the old Commander Shephard collar grab coming up.

Maybe I can't understand this particular issue because I haven't played the game with an high Might wizard, but can't you justify those checks with the usage of some sort of spell that gives you a burst of energies or a particularly frightening appearance? If those particular spells don't fit your character, you can also completely ignore those checks.

The point is that it puts the onus on the player to create their own immersion. Entertainment functions best when it immerses the player in a world, an environment, a story, a gameplay mechanism. Not the other way around. Pillars' attribute scores are too unintuitive and abstract.

 

[Cryomancer]

Skull Trap is pretty much a delayed fireball but I get your point, necromancers in low level campaigns are gimps though.

Most high tier magic spells are useful on BG2, a couple of extremely situational spells for low level don't negate the merit of BG2 having over 300 spells. About skull trap, it scales up to caster level = 20 and deal magical damage, far less resisted than fire. It deal a lot of damage from BG1 to BG2:ToB... The trade off is smaller radius and difficulty to protect your party from the friendly fire.

But if you look to Favorite Mage specialization poll on Beamdog forum, no specialization took more than 25% of the votes, which means means that a lot of then are viable. https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/3640/favourite-mage-specialisation-bg-series/p1

Necromancy(my favorite) makes enemies more susceptible to my finger of death, skull trap, etc; BUT losing illusion is a huge price to pay and many people din't chose necromancy for this reason. When i googled a similar poll, i only found a interesting topic

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/103809-wizard-subclasses/

"Josh Sawyer just hates Wizards" has almost 3 times more vote than "Would try "Specialist" Wizard now, besides the Evoker"

Only evoker and universalist wizards are played on PoE2.

I think most groups will have at least one character proficient with a kind of blunt weapon, also would the bonus you get vs Skeletons or Golems outweigh your proficiency bonus in say great swords?

That depends a lot. My sorcerer when i soloed did better vs golems using his staff than the phantom blade... IF worth changing, is up to your party composition, enemy, proficiency(...)

Bows are a little complicated. In real life

One thing which BG1/2 did right is that the best bows had a lot of STR requirement. I tried to practice with a 180 lbf longbow IRL and thrust me. After the third shot, i was only "half drawing"...