Is WotR a pretty big improvement over Kingmaker? Like, say the same level of improvement between Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2?

I generally like Kingmaker - I thought it was a pretty good game but not amazing... which is how I feel about Baldur's gate 1. However, Baldur's Gate 2 is one of my favorites. Specifically, I thought BG2 was much better in its writing, items, level design, and encounters (felt more varied and balanced compared to BG1). I also preferred the higher-level setting.

Do you think WotR made the same sort of improvements over Kingmaker?

I don't care for the campaign part of WOTR; I preferred the kingdom-building in Kingmaker. The RPG portion of the game I do enjoy better though.

WOTR's campaign is of a different type when compared to Kingmaker and whether you like one above the other partially depends on which type you prefer.

Kingmaker is more sandboxy, while WOTR campaign is a bit more streamlined (though not really a railroad).

WOTR does not have kingdom building but you get to manage a crusade, which some people do not like.


I guess if you want to use BG as a comparisson, if you like BG2's maps (less open, more detailed) you would like WOTR more.

WOTR has Mythic levels which roughly translates to a 'higher-level setting', though pathfinder's Mythic levels are different compared to Baldur Gate 2's epic levels. WOTR's Inevitable excess DLC is basically a mini campaign focused on mythic challenges but in my opinion uses too much stat-padding.

Story-wise its a bit more cliché if you are used to the usual RPG fare (lot's of demons) though while your opponnets nature are a bit less exotic compared to Kingmaker's they are varied enough.

Items are fine, quality comparable to Kingmaker's (ie good).

There are more classes though not all are fleshed out (looking at you Disciple of the Pike).

Companions are ok though their classes are not as well spread out as Kingmaker's.

All in all, I would say that WOTR iimproves upon Kingmaker on certain levels but also does several things differently which might not be to everyone's taste.

Gameplay is more interesting while companions are not with few exceptions.
In some areas, they try to push woke agenda, when I tried to comment on this topic they banned me from steam forums.
Companions are okay-ish but I still prefer companions from nwn 2.
Overall companions from kingmaker are better. Maybe it is just me. For example, Valerie is more of a paladin than Seelah ever be.

I have not yet finished the game, but i can list some of the (subjective) improvements:

- it shows you which quests are time critical and which are not. In addition you get a "no going back beyond this point" message before you pass on to the next chapter
- companions and management are similar to kingmaker
- the "crusade" is basically a mini-"heroes of might and magic"
- i prefer the new handling of "kingdom management". Kingmaker had too many "points of no returns" and "choices" for my taste. Also it shows you (not sure if it did already in KM though) when an "event" is repeatable or not.
- it is harder to miss progression (kingmaker was very bad in this imo). You could play and build your kingdom and still miss a lot of upgrades (example how to upgrade certain things). Wrath is way more transparent and user-friendly here
- both games seem to become weaker and weaker in fun/time relation the more you get near the endgame. Also the puzzles in Kingmaker were more to my taste than most in Wrath. I especially hate the abyssal city to the point of taking a long break from the game (4th wall meta gameplay). Isometrics are hard enough to navigate and this mechanic should have been solved with proper ingamesystemmechanics, not dependant on how and when i use the computer-human interface devices.
- THis said, i also can not remember missing loot in KIngmaker, because my camera angle was this or that way...in Wrath it can happen.
- in BG1 you were story and npc driven most of the time, BG2 was way more sandboxy. Wrath is also more sandboxy, but still far away from truly being able to choose what to do. But compared to Kingmaker, a scripted event usually does not disrupt all your plans for the next weeks.

Fully agree. I hit a wall here and have not had the desire to continue.

I did play the "Through The Ashes" DLC all the way through and found that much more enjoyable. I am anxiously awaiting the next chapters of that to be released.

I like Kingmaker more. I enjoyed the mixture of kingdom-management and standard rpg exploration. WotR however, I cant stand the crusade management and I dont really like the overall story.

I think WOTR is a pretty major improvement.

A LOT MORE WOKIE AND DISGUSTING STORIES AND CHARACTERS !
Get rid of Paladin, totally useless here, smite might work in actual D&D, not here where you need it most.
WAY TOO MANY CLASSES, SUBCLASSES & ARCHTYPES. But that maybe Pathfinder Derp.
Still unable to make my own party, have to play the pre-built wokies.
If you have money, you might make 1 of them but that's all. What happened to loading NPCs from a list of characters you custom made in all games ?
Levels are still unbalanced and horrible, I can smear a random encounter mob on the rocks and trees, but a scripted fight can beat me up. Some boss fights you can loose in turn mode too. I play a customized easy level or customized normal tops. THIS IS NOT NORMAL.
Your AB - Derp 30, Large Monster AC - Hero 55. So you need 2x 20s to hit them once, and at times there are 4 of them. Your spell DC - Derp 25, Monster Resistance - Hero 45.
But overall what most of the real time strategy fights lack is AI to run their own abilities and spells. Otherwise I have to micro-manage the whole party at all times, might as well be turn based.
I should be able to run my character and only mine, the AI runs the rest, it doesn't.
Lich Path, could not turn Deskari into my servant. Have phylactery but lich dies in combat ? Plus I have 2 items on me that return me from death, in addition. So I gave up 120hp just because...
A lot of broken spells, traits, etc...

Obviously you never played NWN (AI could be switched to use minimal spells, maximum spells or none) or real D&D PnP or otherwise Editions 1 to 3.5. I didn't like 3.5 myself since all classes became Monk/Class, or RDD/Class for all the exploits. When you translate RPG to computer, if I am not a caster why do I have to manage all the spells ? Kinda takes away focus from my character to NPCs.
Pathfinder games are the worst CRPGs I have ever seen with a huge imbalance in Level of Play to date unresolved.
The infinite classes do not make a player good or the game good. Pathfinder is not my favorite.

I did years ago. It too was made by BioWare, same as BG1. I don't follow your point.


First of all, people in your party are not NPCs. That's a big misunderstanding you have right there. 2nd WOTR is a single player game, not multiplayer. 3rd it uses Pathfinder rules which are designed for turns, so if that's the game you want to play, that's how it should be played IMO. Otherwise it's a totally different game and you are just applying a D&D skin to it.

But, unlike BG3 WOTR does give you the AI option & it's not that hard to manage. You do need to to use your brain a tad and decide what spell your mages should cast and right click it so it becomes their default action. But after that you basically can leave them alone. It seems to me you just haven't learned to play very well.

Seems to me you're a troll looking to put down someone. You clearly know that spells are quite limited and not every spell fits every combat, thus you cannot just set them on a spell and forget it.
If Pathfinder would be a turn based combat only RPG, then fine I'm ok with playing that too, but when they provide quick shortcuts to combat, it becomes a joke.

Nothing about the combat is quick or a shortcut. You don't make any sense to me. Anyway, like I said, play Skyrim I guess.

Yes, I play Skyrim too but the lack of definition of the 4 basic classes is ruining that as an RPG.